Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CRUDE OIL TERMINAL (HUMBER) BILL [Lords]

ASHDOWN FOREST BILL

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of the Questions on the Order Paper are quite illegible. May we have some procedure whereby we may know what the Questions are?

Mr. Speaker: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member. I am having considerable difficulty in deciphering them. On the other hand, if each hon. Member were to read out his Question it would delay our proceedings. It is best if we try to decipher them as best we can.

Later—

Mr. Speaker: Further to the point of order, I am seeing whether it is possible to improve this production on subsequent occasions.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Disaster Relief

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has made to the NATO Council on disaster relief; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): My right hon. Friend has made no proposals in this respect.

Mr. Biffen: Where is he?

Mr. Hattersley: Signing the NATO declaration in Brussels.
There are already NATO arrangements for disaster relief. Possible ways and means of improving them are currently under examination.

Mr. Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that the strength of the Alliance rests not only on the nuclear guarantee but also upon the vitality of the Alliance? Will he persuade his right hon. Friend to treat with urgency this question of the peaceful use of armed forces within the alliance?

Mr. Hattersley: I have great sympathy with that proposition but I do not want to say anything which prejudges the work going on in NATO at the moment. Nor do I want to say at this moment how the balance should be distributed between NATO responsibility and United Nations responsibility. My hon. Friend is right in saying that NATO ought to share this sort of responsibility as well as its wider rôle.

Turks and Caicos Islands

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider making arrangements to permit official Canadian involvement in the future of the Turks and Caicos Islands.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Miss Joan Lestor): I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Mr. Lamont) on 19th June.

Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is a need for economic development in these islands and that it would be reasonable to expect, if that development occurs, that Canadian involvement would need to be considerable? May I ask whether it would not be wise, to avoid exploitation of those now living in these islands, to have formal consultative arrangements with the Canadian Government?

Miss Lestor: I accept what my hon. Friend has said about economic development. It is Government policy that constitutional development in these islands should be in accordance with the wishes of the people there. Subject to this I would welcome any proposals which may be of benefit to the islands.

Mr. Farr: To what extent is the Colonial Development Corporation involved in the islands, and are there any projects in mind for this area which have not been announced?

Miss Lestor: I could not give the hon. Member a detailed answer to that question. If he will write to me I shall be happy to do so.

Rhodesia

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has made with the Smith régime in Southern Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of negotiations between the Rhodesian Government and the African National Council.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contact has taken place with the Smith régime in Southern Rhodesia; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): My right hon. Friend has received no direct reports from the Rhodesian régime, but hon. Members will have seen in the Press that it has detained Dr. Edson Sithole, the Publicity Secretary of the African National Council, and that in consequence Bishop Muzorewa has announced that the ANC would suspend negotiations with Mr. Smith. These developments seem to set back the prospects for an early accommodation between the Africans and Europeans in Rhodesia, since in our view such an accommodation must be reached if there is to be a peaceful settlement for Rhodesia.
I sincerely hope that wiser counsels will prevail and that Dr. Sithole will be released.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: In the light of those remarks may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would care to say—as Bishop Muzorewa has indicated his intention to discontinue negotiations with the régime—why it is that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is meeting Canaan Banaana, the No. 2 of the African National Council, this week? Further, in this situation, will he confirm that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends will begin to take a more charitable view towards the white minority in Rhodesia, who, coming under increasing pressure—as they will in the coming months, as a result of the changed situation in Mozambique—will need some encouragement from this country if they are to be persuaded to accept a reasonable solution to the problem which will avoid widespread bloodshed?

Mr. Ennals: On the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, the encouragement I want to give to the white minority in Rhodesia is for them to recognise the facts of the situation and properly enter into negotiations with the Africans to secure a just and fair settlement which would be acceptable to the majority. In answer to the first part of the question, I very much hope that Dr. Sithole will be released, but we welcome the possibility and likelihood that representatives of the African National Council will be here in London shortly. They are hoping to meet my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and this should provide a valuable opportunity to enable us to be brought up to date on discussions taking place there and to take stock of the situation.

Mr. Huckfield: Although there may not have been any recent contacts between the British Government and the Smith régime, is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the level of contacts that have been maintained in Rhodesia by British firms and State-owned corporations? For example, is he happy about the sales representation force which is still being maintained by British Airways in Salisbury?

Mr. Ennals: I am aware of the problem of the British Airways office in Salisbury, and I am informed that this matter is now being looked at as part of the


general review, particularly in respect to sanctions against Rhodesia.

Mr. Wall: Is it not Government policy to hope that talks between Mr. Smith and the ANC will succeed, in which case does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the sort of remarks alleged to have been made by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in Zambia will help in any such agreement? Is it not a fact that Bishop Muzorewa told the Press that he knows of no representatives of ANC who are coming to visit Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Ennals: I am not aware of the last matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The representatives who are coming here are, we understand, senior representatives of the ANC. It remains to be seen whether they will come with any message from the Bishop, but they will be welcome here because it will enable us to be brought up to date. On the situation following the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I support what she said, and I believe that the representations she made on her visits to East Africa will be extremely helpful in respect of contacts with organisations in Rhodesia.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at his original reply, in which he appeared to suggest that all Europeans are on one side with Mr. Smith and all Africans are on the other side against Mr. Smith? This racialist over-simplification is damaging. Will he avoid it in future?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that there are differences, and happily so, within the white minority. It has been reported in the Press that there will shortly be an election, and those differences may well be made clear. On the point about the African majority, I have little doubt that the African National Council enjoys a wide measure of support among Africans in Rhodesia, but it does not mean that it has any exclusive claim to represent African opinion.

Latin America

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to visit Latin America.

Miss Joan Lestor: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit Latin America, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be paying an official visit to Mexico from 29th June to 1st July, and will then lead the United Kingdom delegation to the Law of the Sea Conference for the period 2nd to 5th July. Other Ministers also have plans to visit Latin America this summer.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful for that reply. Will the hon. Lady ask her right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter and perhaps plan a wider and more extensive visit to various countries in Latin America? Does she not agree that the recent unveiling of the statue to Simon Bolivar in this country is an illustration of the enormous fund of good will in Latin America towards Great Britain? Does she also accept the growing importance of trade between Latin America and Britain, which last year amounted to £900 million? Finally, will she consider sending one of her colleagues to the Argentine to reaffirm to that Government that there should be no change in the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands without the full consent of the islanders?

Miss Lestor: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said on trade and general good will. I assure him that my right hon. Friend will be dealing with both those matters when he makes his visit to Latin America later this summer. There is a Question on the Falkland Islands later on the Order Paper. We accept that the Islanders have the right to determine their own future.

Mr. Ford: May I emphasise to my hon. Friend that Ministers should take every opportunity to visit Latin America in view of the increasing regard in that continent for Europe, and this country in particular, the increasing volume of trade with the United Kingdom and the fact that British technology and products are still held in great store in prestige terms by Latin American countries? Does she not agree that there is a great amount of inter-dependability between Great Britain and Latin America?

Miss Lestor: I accept what my hon. Friend said. I would add that at least five Ministers are visiting Latin America before the end of the summer, and I think


that that is a fair representation of our feelings on the matter.

Mr. Kershaw: Will the hon. Lady not allow the Labour Government's infatuation with the United Nations, and in particular with the silliest committee of all, the Committee of Twenty-Four, to cause them to overlook the importance of the Falkland Islands? Why did the Government propose talks with the Argentine if they had nothing further to offer?

Miss Lestor: May I say that I am not opposed to infatuation with the United Nations or anybody else for that matter—[Laughter.] There are lines one always has to draw. There is a later question on the Order Paper in regard to the Falkland Islands, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tries to catch the Speaker's eye on that occasion.

Mr. James Johnson: I was under the impression that in her original reply my hon. Friend said that the Minister of State would be visiting Caracas for the Law of the Sea Conference. Will she give the House a pledge that when he is there he will safeguard the interests of the deep-sea fishing fleet and support our desire for an extension of limits to 200 miles?

Miss Lestor: My hon. Friend was correct in the first half of his supplementary question. On the second half of his remarks, my hon. Friend would not like to be committed at this stage.

French Nuclear Tests

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the French Government following the announcement that nuclear testing in the Pacific is to be resumed.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the French Government regarding its proposed series of further nuclear tests in the atmosphere.

Mr. Ennals: I would refer hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's Written Answer of 13th June on this subject.—[Vol. 874, c. 627.]

Mr. Rifkind: In view of this morning's condemnation of the British protest by

the French Prime Minister, will the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the Secretary of State was aware at the time of the protest that Britain was exploding a similar device in the Nevada desert? Will he say whether any attempt was made to persuade the French Government to consider the virtues of underground as opposed to atmospheric testing?

Mr. Ennals: I am amazed by that question, which shows a complete misunderstanding of the absolute difference between the two tests. The British test was carried out underground, in line with the partial test ban treaty and the non-proliferation treaty. The French test and the Chinese test were carried out above ground, in the atmosphere. Therefore, the situation between the two is entirely different.

Mr. Allaun: Notwithstanding the difference, had the Foreign Secretary been told anything about the British test explosion when he made his representations to the French? If so, was not it hypocrisy? If he had not been informed, why was not he consulted, and what action will he take against those responsible for the test explosion?

Mr. Ennals: There was no question of hypocrisy here. As I said on 24th May, this Government—and I hope, the Opposition—believe that all nuclear explosions, for whatever purposes, should be carried out within the framework of the partial test ban treaty and the non-proliferation treaty, to which a large part of the international community have already subscribed. Therefore, we were dealing with an entirely different situation. The representations which were made to the French and Chinese ambassadors concerned tests which were carried out in the atmosphere. The plea was that both countries should, as Britain has done, sign the partial test ban treaty.

Zambia and Tanzania (Detained British Subjects)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Governments of Zambia and Tanzania


concerning the detention of British citizens, without charges being made and without trial.

Miss Joan Lestor: The hon. Member knows from my letter to him of 6th June that during my recent vistit to Zambia I told the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of Home Affairs of my concern about the United Kingdom citizens who are in detention without charge or trial. The Ministers undertook to do all they could to reduce the delay in bringing the two men to trial.
The Minister of Overseas Development spoke similarly to the Tanzanian authorities about the four United Kingdom citizens detained there.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is simply not good enough? I assume that she is aware that my constituent has been in prison without charges being made, and without trial, for three months, that his firm is behaving scandalously towards him, and that it has already declared him guilty by disowning him? Will my hon. Friend take steps to make representations to the firm, and give an undertaking that if and when this man is brought to trial he will be adequately legally represented?

Miss Lestor: I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation is far from satisfactory. He knows from my discussions with him that that is so. Mr. Petrie's employers terminated his service as from 3rd March, his last day of work, and they have paid him all the money due to him. His dismissal, of course, is a matter for his employers, and it is difficult for us to intervene. We understand that, however deplorable it may be, their action is in line with that taken in the cases of other workers detained in the past, and Mr. Petrie himself has indicated that he accepts the position. I made the strongest possible representations when I was in Zambia. I have asked my hon. Friend before to come to see me co that we could discuss the details of my talks and any further matters which he might wish to raise. We shall of course see that Mr. Petrie receives proper legal representation when he is brought to trial. I was given assurances about that when I was in Zambia.

Mr. Hooley: Has my hon. Friend any information about the health and welfare of Mr. Miles, detained for some time

without trial by the Tanzanian authorities?

Miss Lestor: I have not had time to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development all the details of the representations which she made in Tanzania. She returned only last night. Mr. Miles was arrested on 9th January and is detained under the Tanzanian Preventive Dentention Act. The High Commission has been in frequent touch with the Tanzanian authorities and has continued to press that Mr. Miles should be brought to trial if there are charges to be answered or else released. He has been visited three times. The last occasion was on 19th April. Another visit is expected to take place very shortly. He does not need a lawyer at present. The High Commission will discuss legal representation when the time comes and will give him any advice and help that he may need. When I have discussed the matter further with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development, I shall convey any additional information to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Farr: In view of the fact that two constituents of mine were recently released from Zambia ater being improperly held for some time—and I take this opportunity to thank her for her efforts—will the hon. Lady consider asking the Zambian and Tanzanian ambassadors to visit her at an early date so that she may voice the displeasure expressed in this House today?

Miss Lestor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. If nothing happens in the very near future, I shall consider doing that. It could be very useful.

Gibraltar

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the discussions that took place on Thursday 30th May between Her Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government over the future of Gibraltar.

Mr. Hattersley: These Anglo-Spanish talks between officials in Madrid on 30th and 31st May were entirely exploratory, without commitment and without prejudice to the positions of either side. No decisions were taken. The talks derived


from the United Nations Consensus of last December.

Mr. Hughes: Were the people of Gibraltar made aware that these talks were taking place? If not, why not? Does my hon. Friend appreciate all the harassment and economic pressure that they have had to put up with over several years? Surely my hon. Friend can confirm that at least it is not the intention of a Labour Government to hand over the people of Gibraltar to the Fascist régime in Spain.

Mr. Hattersley: A Press statement about the meeting was issued, and I hope that the people of Gibraltar know that one of the matters that the meeting considered was the issue not so much of harassment but of the restriction on travel in and out of Gibraltar. As for the most important aspect of my hon. Friend's question—the future of Gibraltar—I confirm that the Preamble to the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution Order—namely, that Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar pass under the sovereignty of another State against their free will and democratically expressed wish—is and will continue to be the policy of the Government.

Mr. Money: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Gibraltar have freely and openly expressed their desire to stay within the rule of law and within an area which has religious toleration and free trade unions? Does he also accept the deep concern being shown by the people of Gibraltar about Press reports of the negotiations that Her Majesty's Government are entering into at this time?

Mr. Hattersley: I doubt whether the concern is as great as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I hope that my assurance today about the future of Gibraltar will allay any concern that exists. Our policy remains the absolute insistence that the people of Gibraltar must decide where their own destiny lies, and the hon. Gentleman is right that they have decided to leave it lying within the present constitutional arrangements.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Although we accept my hon. Friend's assurances, will he accept that being between a Fascist

kingdom on the one hand and a feudal kingdom on the other is not a very fortunate position in which to be? Will my hon. Friend not only undertake that the people of Gibraltar will have the right to express their own opinions when any conclusion is reached, but accept that the people of Gibraltar should be told at all times what the British Government are doing?

Mr. Hattersley: I accept that, of course. That is why the talks concluded with a comprehensive briefing about the details of some of the rather prosaic subjects discussed, such as air access to Gibraltar, which, although there had been less progress than we had hoped, we felt should be made clear to them.

Mr. Amery: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm—he has not made it clear in his answers so far—that the Gibraltar Government have been kept fully informed of the progress of the talks?

Mr. Hattersley: Yes, of course. It would hardly have been possible to keep them uninformed, since we briefed the newspapers.

Namibia (High Commissioner)

Mr. Hooky: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to seek any meeting later in the year with Mr. Sean McBride, United Nations High Commissioner for Namibia.

Miss Joan Lestor: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet Mr. McBride, but he will, of course, be glad to see him if an opportunity occurs. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State had a useful meeting with Mr. McBride at New York on 9th April and I myself had a valuable meeting with him in London.

Mr. Hooley: Although I welcome the discussions which have taken place with the High Commissioner for Namibia, does not my hon. Friend agree that it is now high time that Her Majesty's Government accepted without equivocation the judgment of the International Court, the decision of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the decision of the Security Council that the occupation of Namibia by South Africa is totally illegal? Will Her Majesty's


Government now use all possible diplomatic pressure to bring that occupation to an end?

Miss Lestor: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. We are all anxious to reach a decision on Namibia as quickly as possible, and the matter is under active consideration by all of us. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there are difficult legal aspects involved. This is one of the things that has made the process of reaching a decision take a little longer than we had hoped. But we are making progress and I hope that before too long we shall be able to announce our decision.

Mr. Stanbrook: When will the Government give up their foolish diplomatic vendetta against the Government of South Africa and, if they want to affect its policies, try something more constructive?

Miss Lestor: Most of that question will come up under Question 12. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will try to raise it then.

Simon Bolivar (Statue)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement following his recent official meeting with a delegation of South American politicians and Ministers who visited London to attend the unveiling ceremony of a statue of Simon Bolivar.

Miss Lestor: My right hon. Friend and I were delighted to have the opportunity of meeting the many distinguished visitors from the six Bolivarian countries. Their gift of the statue and its unveiling on such a prominent site illustrated the historic ties between our countries and provided a unique occasion to strengthen the good will that exists between us.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the hon. Lady aware that South America has had more experience of hyper-inflation than any other area in the world in recent years and therefore affords a suitable study if we are trying to combat the catastrophe that will come to the United Kingdom in the coming months? What arrangements is she making to ensure that members of the Government and the Civil Service visit South America to find out either how to combat hyper-inflation or how to govern a banana republic?

Miss Lestor: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can learn about these matters from those countries, perhaps members of the Liberal Party would take that up, study it and make recommendations in the light of what they discover.

Mr. Amery: Did the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend take the opportunity to consult the distinguished visitors about the situation in Chile and, if so, what advice did they give?

Miss Lestor: For myself—I think that this applies to all of us—apart from general discussions which occasionally touched on Chile but were not directly connected with it, the answer is that no advice was given.

African States

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decisions have been made in the review of relationships with Southern Africa; what action is proposed on Rhodesia, Namibia, Angola, Mozambique and South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ennals: We have announced decisions on arms to South Africa; we have cancelled the licence for the Wasp helicopter and announced our intention of tightening sanctions against Rhodesia. We have also made known our attitude towards sporting contacts with South Africa and we shall announce other decisions when they are taken.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I know that we are pleased with the action already taken by the Government. Does he realise that the Labour Party in its policy statement has gone much further and that, in recent weeks, the Fascist dictatorship in Portugal has now ended, which means that Mozambique and Angola will soon be moving towards independence, that this has dramatically changed the situation in Southern Africa and that therefore the Government should clearly state their attitude to the illegal régimes in Namibia and Rhodesia and say that we, with the rest of the world, will not continue with the policies of the previous Government?

Mr. Ennals: Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have already made clear our attitude towards the illegal régime in Rhodesia. It is true that the


situation in Africa and the prospects for countries which have been under colonial rule have dramatically changed as a result of the situation in Portugal. We naturally hope that the parties concerned—both the new Portuguese Government and the liberation movements—will be able to negotiate agreements providing for lasting settlements of the political future of the territories concerned. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right to say that the situation, particularly in Mozambique, will have a profound effect on the future of Rhodesia.

Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the disastrous effects of this Government's policies towards Southern Africa? Is he aware that, in my constituency, 700 men, at least, are facing redundancy at GEC Traction Limited, which supplies the locomotives to South African Railways and has done for the last 30 years, and that this contract is worth £3 million a year? Just how far are the Labour Government prepared to carry their futile moralistic posturings at the expense of British jobs and British balance of payments interests?

Mr. Ennals: What I will say is that I am very much aware of the great damage done to this country's reputation and to our trade by the previous administration's attitude towards the Government of South Africa. That affected our relationship with many other countries in Africa, as well as countries in other parts of the world, and put our country in a very small minority of States. In relation to trade, there has been no change in the Government's attitude towards commercial relations with South Africa. If any change were to be made, of course, it would be announced to the House.

Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to other members of NATO that there can be no question of this Government's supporting any attempt to extend the influence of NATO into the Southern Atlantic and make further defence arrangements with racialist countries like the Simonstown Agreement, which some of us already view with distaste?

Mr. Ennals: The Simonstown Agreement is one of the issues in our review. As for general relationships and the sea routes, it would be wrong for me to make any comments which would prejudge the

review of current defence commitments and capabilities announced in Parliament on 21st March. I absolutely understand my hon. Friend's depth of feeling on this subject.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since it fundamentally affects any hope of improving relations with one of our most important export markets, will the right hon. Gentleman try to remove the glaring inconsistency which causes so much damage out there, whereby the Prime Minister condemns violence and terrorism in the pursuit of political ends but people like his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State, a few thousand miles to the North, support violence and terrorism in pursuit of political ends in Southern Africa?

Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend has never supported violence and terrorism. What I will say—I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree—is that, in those countries like South Africa and Rhodesia in which the normal democratic opportunities for self-expression are denied, those very circumstances create the conditions in which violence can often become inevitable.

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: Further to that point of order. Since I found the answer satisfactory, I hope that I shall catch your eye on the Adjournment, Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill).

Mr. Ennals: Further to that point of order. I hope to be here myself.

Middle East

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Comonwealth Affairs if he will undertake an official tour of the Middle Eastern capitals.

Lord Balniel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about progress being made towards resolving the Arab-Israeli dispute.

Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present for visiting Middle Eastern capitals.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House will be disappointed to hear that? Will he consider asking for a change of policy on this matter, so that the Foreign Secretary can tour these Middle East capitals and make a list of those which he thinks are suitably democratic and those which are undemocratic and then tell British companies so that they may know with whom they may trade and with whom they may not? Then, perhaps, we could scrub some of the possibilities of trade and put some more men out of work, like the constituents mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill).

Mr. Ennals: There is no need for my right hon. Friend to visit the Middle East, although I hope that the opportunity will come; I said that he had no immediate plans. I assure the hon. Gentleman that trade relations with countries in the Middle East are encouraging. In several countries there is a great desire—which we are encouraging—for trade relations and for the use of British technology. The Government, and British firms, are signing valuable contracts which will be to the advantage of the employment situation here as a result of actions taken in the last few months.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Scotland

Mr. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in his EEC negotiations, he will discuss ways of securing adequate Scottish representation on Community institutions.

Mr. Hattersley: No, Sir. In filling posts open to citizens of the United Kingdom no distinction is drawn between candidates from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Appointments are made on their merits.

Mr. Robertson: Does my hon. Friend realise that the vital interests of Scotland are not always identical with those of England and that there is need in negotiations for the particular Scottish point of view to be heard in the institutions of Europe, when these matters are

being discussed, and that the Scottish point of view should be clearly seen to be being expressed?

Mr. Hattersley: Of course, and I accept without reservation that in some particulars there is a proper Scottish point of view. But I hope that my hon. Friend will equally accept that those Scottish interests and that Scottish point of view are represented very robustly by the Foreign Secretary and the other Ministers who speak for Great Britain.

Mr. Brewis: Is it not the case that one British judge at the Court of Justice, Lord Mackenzie Stuart, is a Scotsman, of the two Commissioners one is a Scotsman—Mr. George Thomson—that the British delegation to the European Parliament has about double the number of Scotsmen on it that it should have, and that if the Labour Party sent a delegation Scotland would be even more fully represented?

Mr. Hattersley: It is certainly true that, numerically, Scotland occupies a larger proportion of the representation at all these institutions than would be the case were it done on a pro rata basis in comparison with the population. But in the history of this Government and the administration of this country, that has always been so, and no doubt it will continue in the EEC.

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in his negotiations with the EEC, he will discuss how Scotland might gain representation on an equal basis with other small nations making up the enlarged Community.

Mr. Hattersley: Her Majesty's Government will ensure that the interests of every part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, are fully safeguarded within the EEC, and I do not think, therefore, that the question of separate representation for Scotland need arise.

Mr. Sillars: Is my hon. Friend aware that the surest way of safeguarding the Scottish position would be to secure a renegotiation package in complete accord with Labour Party policy? Is he further aware that if, by some mischance or bad luck, he misses the main target of the renegotiation—which is the transfer back


minster—Scotland might find it necesof sovereignty from Brussels to West-sary to seek member State membership of the EEC?

Mr. Hattersley: I have no hesitation or qualification in agreeing with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Of course, the best interests of Scotland will be preserved—indeed, the best interests of all the United Kingdom will be preserved—by the continued pursuit of the renegotiation aim laid down in the Labour Party manifesto. That is what my right hon. Friend is doing and will continue to do. The second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question about separate Scottish membership of the EEC is a hypothesis which I hope will never come about in practice, because, as my right hon. Friend has made clear time and again, we are renegotiating for success and I do not propose to consider at this early stage of the negotiations what is to happen if the renegotiations turn out to be a failure.

Mr. Kilfedder: Shortly after the United Kingdom entered the EEC the British delegation triumphantly announced that a tremendous amount of development aid would be coming to Northern Ireland. Since it has never materialised, why has it not been granted? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this supports the notion that Northern Ireland ought to have proper representation—and I mean proper representation—in the Common Market?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman, I understand, rejoices in the fact that external relations for Northern Ireland are conducted by the United Kingdom Government. If he believes that that is right and proper, he must accept that the rule should apply to our relations with the EEC. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has some knowledge of Northern Ireland, is looking after its proper interests very well indeed.

Mr. George Lawson: Will my hon. Friend remember always that the abiding slogan of the Labour and trade union movement, particularly of its left wing, was that the workers of the world should unite? Therefore, will he pay not too much attention to the very narrow-minded nationalism that emanates par

ticularly from what is called the "left wing" of the Parliamentary Labour Party?

Commonwealth Countries

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Commonwealth Governments have indicated to Her Majesty's Government that they favour a pulling back by the United Kingdom from the European Communities.

Mr. Hattersley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave on 17th June to a Question from the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).—[Vol. 875, c. 17.]

Mr. Hurd: Is not that rather odd? As this is a phrase which the Foreign Secretary used himself in his speech, should not the hon. Gentleman elaborate on it a little? Ls not the fact of the matter that the Commonwealth argument so often used by the hon. Gentlemen's right hon. and hon. Friends against British membership of the Community has now been absolutely stood on its head in that, in the Commonwealth, particularly among the poorer countries, the overwhelming hope is that Britain will stay in the Community and help them get proper access to the Community as a whole for their products?

Mr. Hattersley: No, I think that it was utterly reasonable that I should draw the hon. Gentlemen's attention to the entire paragraph from which he had extracted three words to include in his Question. The point that my right hon. Friend was making properly and necessarily, is that while there are very many Commonwealth countries which hope that we shall retain our membership of the EEC, Commonwealth countries are virtually unanimous in the hope that we shall renegotiate, and in doing so preserve and extend their interests. That position has been stated many times, most recently by Mr. Kirk in New Zealand on 5th June. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right in pointing out that balance of interest, which is retained membership but improved terms.

Mr. Roy Hughes: But does not my hon. Friend appreciate, nevertheless, that it is not the Commonwealth countries


which must ultimately decide this issue but the people of Britain?

Mr. Hattersley: Of course, I accept that without reservation. I hope to answer a Question on that precise subject later today. But, while the British people must decide, I hope and believe that one of the things that will affect the people's decision is the influence of the Commonwealth. This is properly part of our renegotiation objectives.

Council of Ministers

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is contemplating any change in the unanimity rule in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Hattersley: No, Sir.

Mr. Moate: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the previous Government laid great stress on the importance of retaining the veto as a defence of our essential national sovereignty? Is it not a little unsatisfactory that this unanimity rule is just a convention and not actually a rule of the Community? Will he at least consider the possibility of arranging for the unanimity rule to be built in as a more permanent feature of the mechanism of the Community?

Mr. Hattersley: The unanimity rule has worked very well—though not enshrined in the treaties—for the last eight years. To preserve a country's proper interests one needs the unanimity rule as it now stands, and a Government who apply it fearlessly. The difference between now and before February is that we have both those situations.

Mr. Spearing: Despite the fact, which my hon. Friend claims, of the presence of the unanimity rule, does he recall that in a written reply recently he declined to define Britain's major national interests where he feels that the rule could be invoked? Does he also recall that the last part of the text of the so-called Luxembourg Agreement is confined to certain agricultural matters and, therefore, implies that everything else is still subject to majority vote?

Mr. Hattersley: In practice that is not how the unanimity rule works. During the limited period that I have attended the Council of Ministers in Brussels and

Luxembourg I have seen it worked by virtually every country which is a member of the EEC on virtually every topic that has been discussed. This is a great deal wider in practice than it appears to be in theory.

EFTA Countries

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with EFTA countries arising out of his renegotiation with the EEC.

Mr. Hattersley: None, Sir, as yet. But we shall of course be ready to discuss with the EFTA countries any developments in renegotiation which merit such discussion.

Mr. Jay: Has any of the EFTA countries told the British Government that it would not wish to continue industrial free trade with this country in the event of our withdrawal from the EEC?

Mr. Hattersley: No, Sir. I have no doubt that the EFTA countries would wish to do so. The problem to which we must address our minds is whether other countries would want to do the same.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the Minister agree that the total population of EFTA was about 90 million, of which Britain provided 55 million, and that, therefore, from the point of view of Britain, the whole arrangement was a farce?

Mr. Hattersley: No. I certainly do not subscribe to that view. I believe that EFTA, in its time, had very considerable benefits to offer Britain and considerable benefits to be enjoyed by the other members. Again, the question that we must decide is whether those times have now passed or whether it can be recreated.

Mr. Rippon: May I express the hope that the Minister will have consultations with EFTA countries, because clearly our interests are very much bound together? Will he confirm that no EFTA country has expressed any desire for Britain to leave the Community?

Mr. Hattersley: I confirm the second part of that question with pleasure. As to whether discussions take place with EFTA, as sooner or later they are bound to do, this depends on the progress and


the nature of each stage of the renegotiations.

Renegotiation

Mr. Dixon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give further details on the method whereby the people will be consulted following his renegotiation of United Kingdom membership of the Common Market.

Mr. Hattersley: As my right hon. Friend told the House on 11th June, we shall have to wait and see how circumstances develop on this issue before we decide on the precise form of consultation. It will be either a referendum or—possibly—a General Election.

Mr. Dixon: Can the hon. Gentleman help some of my hon. Friends who are rather confused as to precisely what the policy of the Labour Party is? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has stated that it is Labour Party policy to have a referendum, and only a referendum? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the view expressed by his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Hattersley: The policy of the Government is to consult the British people in one form or another. It is in that particular that our Common Market policy is so different from that of the Opposition. As to whether that consultation will take the form of a referendum or a General Election, I can only repeat what the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have said. The likelihood is that it will be a referendum. But that likelihood is not yet a certainty.

Mr. William Hamilton: If it is to be a referendum, will my hon. Friend say how we can be certain that the British electorate will answer the question that is put to them, or will answer any question at all, for that matter?

Mr. Hattersley: I think that the British people will be much more likely to answer a question directly related to the Common Market in a referendum than they would at a General Election concerned with other matters. Clearly, many millions of British people will want to vote Labour in view of the splendid record of the Government in which I serve. Understanding that feeling, one

ought to give them the opportunity to decide about the Common Market on terms which are not clouded by their normal party preferences.

Mr. Rippon: If there were to be a referendum, how would the question to be put to the British nation be framed, and who would frame it?

Mr. Hattersley: It is early days to be asking such questions. When I tried to venture into the question of the administration of a referendum, I was virtually asked what colour the ballot boxes would be. I do not think that we are ready to give that sort of answer yet.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Common Market negotiations.

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the progress of renegotiation of United Kingdom membership of the EEC.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he has taken since his statement of 4th June to renegotiate the terms of United Kingdom membership of the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest discussions at the Council of Ministers on the renegotiation of United Kingdom membership of the EEC.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about his EEC negotiations.

Mr. Stanley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress with the renegotiation of Great Britain's terms of entry into the EEC.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth


Affairs if he will make a statement on current negotiations with the EEC.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the progress of the renegotiation of Great Britain's terms of entry into the European Community.

Mr. Body: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress being made in the renegotiation with the EEC.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on EEC discussions leading to renegotiations of the terms of Great Britain's entry; and if he will make a further statement.

Mr. Marquand: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on his negotiations with the EEC.

Mr. Hattersley: Since my right hon. Friend's statement to the Council on 4th June, copies of which were placed in the Vote Office, there have been meetings in Luxembourg of the Development Cooperation and Agriculture Councils, at which we set out in greater detail our renegotiation objectives in the field of aid and on the Common Agricultural Policy. We also pursued our renegotiation aims under several agenda items at yesterday's Foreign Ministers' Council.

Mr. Marten: At the next meeting of the Foreign Ministers, which seems to be on 22nd and 23rd July, will the hon. Gentleman raise the question of a possible move to federalism in the EEC? I asked the Foreign Secretary whether he would oppose any move towards federalism and he gave a rather woolly reply. Will the Minister of State now give a clear undertaking—I hope that the Conservative Party will on its own behalf do the same—that the Government will block any move towards federalism—the real issue which the whole Common Market debate is about?

Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that some of the hon. Gentlemen's right hon. and hon. Friends would not be happy to find

him limiting the debate to such precise lines, but I give an absolute assurance that the Government have been critical of the movement towards over-hasty federation and over-hasty political union, that this continues to be our position, and that it will be advanced robustly by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Since my hon. Friend has confirmed that no EFTA country wishes us to leave the Common Market and that there is virtual unanimity among Commonwealth countries that we should stay in.—[HON. MEMBERS "No."] If I have misinterpreted what my hon. Friend said, no doubt he will correct me. Since it is the case that all the EFTA countries wish us to remain in the Common Market, and Commonwealth countries are virtually unanimous in doing so, what is the position with regard to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in the renegotiations? The agreement finishes at the end of 1974. What is the position of the Government in relation to renegotiation of the agreement between the EEC and the sugar-producing countries of the Commonwealth? These are vital matters for them.

Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear on 4th June, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development has confirmed, that we require, as a permanent future prospect in the Common Market, access of 1·4 million tons of sugar from the Commonwealth into the Community as a whole. It remains our position on the narrow point of Commonwealth sugar, but, of course, in the wider relationships between the Common Market and Commonwealth countries we expect the Common Market to provide improved aid and financial assistance for the Caribbean as well. That is one of our aims.

Mr. Dykes: These somewhat bizarre renegotiations have shown clearly that, on all rational arguments, the Community as a whole is prepared to see improvement in the terms of membership on any matters for any member country, including the United Kingdom. Is that not the real argument here, and not an argument in terms of helping the Labour Party through its internal struggles? Should not the hon. Gentleman consider


some of the other pressing priorities in the Community, which are more important than some of these spurious renegotiation aspects to which the Foreign Secretary is so addicted at present, such as, for example—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—a centralised European approach to the problems of inflation; such as—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough.

Mr. Hattersley: The Government have made it clear that so long as our renegotiation objectives are not impaired and impeded we shall continue to take part in full in the on-going business of the EEC. In the not too distant future, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be discussing one of the subjects to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. But since we believe that this House has a rôle in these matters, the House will have the opportunity to discuss it first. That seems to be the right balance between preserving the interests of Britain and preserving the interests of the EEC.

Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend accept that settling the matter by this House is not the most admirable way to do things, as was shown last time, in October 1971? Will he further accept that when the renegotiations have been completed, taking into account that this may be after the next General Election, the only satisfactory way of deciding what words should go on the ballot paper for the proposed referendum is to have them decided by that democratic body, the Labour Party Conference, which will remove all the uncertainty that arises out of exchanges between my hon. Friend and the pro-Marketeer sitting behind him?

Mr. Hattersley: Both my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I have been members of the Labour Party for 25 years. I am not prepared to accept many criticisms of the party or the conference, but I think that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will agree with me that of all the virtues possessed by the Labour Party conference, drafting referenda questions is probably not one of them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 38.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order at the end of Question Time.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My Question was grouped with Question No. 36.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order at the end of Question Time.

Later—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to raise an infructuous point of order.

Mr. Speaker: That is very wise. That is an example that I hope will be followed.

Economic and Political Problems

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the context of his study of British membership of the EEC, he has identified particular economic or political problems facing the United Kingdom that would be easier to solve if Great Britain were outside rather than inside the European Community; and which these are.

Mr. Hattersley: As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statements of 1st April and 4th June to the EEC Council of Ministers, we are negotiating for success, not failure. The questions raised by the hon. Member do not therefore arise at this stage.

Mr. Blaker: Is that not rather odd, in view of the fact, as the Minister of State will recall, that his right hon. Friend, said in a speech in the House on 9th May 1967 that he could not think of many problems of an economic or political nature which would be easier to solve if we were outside rather than inside the Community? Will the Minister bear that in mind in his negotiations?

Mr. Hattersley: That is no doubt the case. I do not think that any of us would want to change anything that we have done in the past in speaking about or voting upon the Common Market. The essential fact is that our interests are best served if we can remain in on improved terms, and that is the object of our policy.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the various answers which the Minister has given this afternoon, does he accept that there will be direct representation for Scotland within the EEC only if Scotland is given what it requires and desires namely, self-government? Does the Minister accept that that is the only criterion for direct representation of Scotland within the EEC?

Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that questions on the constitution of Scotland are properly for me. They must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland or raised during the debate which will be allocated, I am sure, to that subject.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice of this point of order. but I was waiting to see how Question Time went today before raising it. You will have noticed that two hon. Members wished to put Questions to the Church Commissioners. That may not be a regular thing, but it is one of the constitutional points of this House that hon. Members should be allowed to put such Questions. Under the new rules the Questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are due to begin at 3.10 p.m. In view of the questions relating to the EEC, it is almost inevitable, because of the popularity of EEC matters, that Questions to the Church Commissioner will never be reached in any circumstances on any occasion. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this matter.

Mr. Speaker: This is a matter that should be considered.

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that there were 37 Questions about EEC matters on the Order Paper which were allowed 20 minutes. There were 32 Questions about non-EEC matters which were allowed 40 minutes. I ask that that position should be considered, along with alternative arrangements.

Mr. Speaker: That is a question not for me but for the usual channels.

Mr. Biffen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the grouping and call

ing of Questions which included Question No. 36. I draw your attention to the fact that although many Questions were grouped for answer you called only a limited number. Naturally I am disappointed that my Question No. 43, which was the third on the list to be grouped, was not called. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who did not have a Question which was grouped with the main Question, was invited to contribute to the exchange that followed, thereby underlining the validity of the belief of a growing number of hon. Members that the louder the voice the greater the likelihood of being favoured. May I respectfully submit that this is a process that has been increasing and which should diminish?

Mr. Speaker: Regarding the grouping of Questions, I should have thought that Ministers should consider the possibility of grouping, for example, only three or four Questions. That would mean that there would be dealt with, at one time, a limited number of Questions and supplementary questions. Hon. Members with similar Questions further down the Order Paper would not necessarily lose this chance later on. By calling all hon. Members whose Questions were grouped with Question No. 32, I should have prevented hon. Members who had Questions higher up in the list from asking their Questions. I realised that there might be some criticism of what I have done, but I hope that the House and Ministers will consider whether what I have suggested is a better procedure.

COURT LINE LIMITED

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on Court Line Limited.
As the House will know, Court Line, which owns shipyards and Clarksons and Horizon Tours, has approached the Government for assistance to deal with financial difficulties which might have threatened employment in the shipyards and the order book for ships and the many hundreds of thousands of people now booked to go on holiday tours this summer.
The Government are ready to acquire the entire shipbuilding and ship repairing


interests of Court Shipbuilders and consider that this should stabilise the situation in respect of Court Line's interests, including the holidays booked for this summer. Further details are being worked out, and I will make a fuller statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman has lost his voice, would it not be appropriate for you to call somebody who has a voice?

Mr. Speaker: I sometimes wish that some other hon. Members would lose their voices.

Mr. Heseltine: I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a pity if I had to shout about a matter as serious as this. I understand that it is a matter of wild hilarity to some Government hon. Members, but I do not wish to indulge in that method of treating the House.
My right hon. Friends and I regard it as extremely unsatisfactory that a statement of this sort should be made with so few details, and, obviously, we shall wish to reserve our position until a further statement has been made. However, there are two serious points upon which I wish to press the right hon. Gentleman further. First, he will understand that amongst the difficulties facing the company there are a number of general problems facing all British industry, many of which are associated with the Budget which was introduced by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which has adversely affected the cash flows of British companies. Secondly, there is the total inability of any company today owning assets which are invested in any of the industries threatened with nationalisation to negotiate any form of settlement with outside companies which might bring a rescue operation to the company concerned. Will the Secretary of State now come clean and admit that we have the first example of a squeeze operation and that he has grabbed this opportunity to take this company into public ownership?

Mr. Benn: I shall first explain why the statement was made in this form. We

have been in consultation with the firm at its request. It was thought right that holidaymakers who had holidays booked this summer should have some reasonable security, and the Government were anxious to help them. The hon. Gentleman will know that Horizon Tours and other tour operators ran into difficulty when the previous Government were in office.
What we are proposing to do is to bring into public ownership 16 companies that are owned by Court Shipbuilders, using legislation that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends put on the statute book. We propose to do that in consultation with the firm and in a form that is completely agreeable to the firm, thus saving £133 million of shipbuilding orders and the jobs of 9,000 workers in development areas, making possible the completion of £48 million worth of expected further orders and safeguarding the holidaymakers. We propose to use the previous Government's legislation in that way. If that is unacceptable to the hon. Gentleman, will he please tell the House why.

Mr. Willey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that management and workers equally are immensely indebted to him for the prompt way in which he has acted to save their livelihood? Will he further underline that it was Court Line Limited which pressed upon him the nationalisation of the shipyards? Does he agree that that makes absolute nonsense of what British shipbuilders have been saying in their propaganda and what was said in the House last week?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend not only for his comment but for the representations that he made on behalf of workers in his own constituency, along with other hon. Members, about the safeguarding of jobs. I should also tell the House that before making a statement I sought the advice of the CBI and the TUC. Without conveying any confidential information, I sent to the TUC the latest annual report of the company and the Press cuttings. The TUC asked me to try to safeguard the jobs in the shipyards. The CBI felt unable to make a recommendation. Speaking personally, I am fed up with weekend speeches attacking public ownership and then the queueing up at the back


door for support when companies are in trouble.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us feel that the Government have no alternative but to act in the way they have done? As one of the shipyards—namely, Appledore—is in my constituency and I therefore have some knowledge of it, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the problems of Court Line have not been caused by financial difficulties in any of its shipyards? Does he agree that labour relations, the record of production, and the fact that they were the first covered yards in Europe all show that they are valuable shipyard enterprises which should be kept in being and that they are a model to shipbuilding in many other parts of the United Kingdom?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the similar experience of the Bideford Shipyard on Torridgeside, when, on the bankruptcy of one of its parent companies, workers had a work-in for no pay until a new buyer could be found?
What are the right hon. Gentleman's future intentions? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It is not too long in the minds of my constituents whose employment is involved. Will it remain a fully nationalised firm? Alternatively, will the Government adopt the BP solution with a percentage of Government shareholders on the board, or will they work towards a Bideford Shipyard solution and hope that a private buyer will be found? Everyone, whatever his status in shipbuilding, would like more detail about the future that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Benn: I remind the House that the statement I made was a preliminary one for the reason I gave. I said that the Government were ready to acquire the entire shipbuilding and ship repairing interests.
The right hon. Gentleman can reassure his constituents that Appledore is safe as a result of the public ownership that will be brought about if these arrangements are concluded by a Labour Government. Perhaps he will convey that message to his shipyard. I might add that the right hon. Gentleman could have prepared his constituents for the merits of this solution more carefully than he has perhaps done. These measures will

help the shipyard in his constituency. It is not our intention, having acquired the interests, if the acquisition goes through by consent under Conservative legislation, to sell them off later to any private owner.

Mr. Bagier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 8,000 or 9,000 workers in the shipyards, ship repair yards and marine engineering yards in the North-East will welcome his speedy action and his statement? Will he give an undertaking that the modernisations which are taking place and which will result in the largest indoor shipbuilding complex in the world at Doxford's in Sunderland will go ahead? Will he also tell the management that it may proceed with its negotiations with the staff, which are reaching a rather delicate stage which should be completed by Friday? Will he give the workers an assurance that their financial future will be secure so that there will be no possibility of industrial strife?

Mr. Benn: I know the point which my hon. Friend raises because he raised it with me personally. The statement I made today is a holding statement designed mainly to reassure my hon. Friend's constituents and other shipyard workers and holidaymakers. As at this moment, the ownership of Court Shipbuilders remains with Court Line and must do so until the negotiations are completed.
As a result of the action that we are ready to take, which has had the broad assent of the company concerned, security of employment will be strengthened. Shipyard workers have suffered too long from bad management, becoming the victims of financial manoeuvres of one kind and another.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I accept that in these circumstances the Government had no alternative but to take this decision. But will the Minister bear in mind that price control, with wage inflation continuing, may cause many other companies to be in the same predicament, and that to move the financial centre of the country from the City of London to Whitehall would be a disaster?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has raised a much wider question. I think he will recognise that the energy crisis,


with the resulting high rise in air fares, has had effects upon holiday organisations which run charter flights, which put them in a wholly different category from the broader considerations he mentions. I shall be happy to discuss the other matters with the hon. Gentleman. In these circumstances, there is no doubt that we were right, just as, in similar circumstances, the Conservatives would have nationalised 16 companies with no less hesitation.

Mr. Sedgemore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a considerable number of people in Luton work at the airport for Court Line? What will be the future of Court Line's aviation services? Will he urgently see a deputation from Luton to discuss plans for workers' control which have already been drawn up for the airport? Against the impending economic crisis and world recession, will not more private firms be asking for Government help, and is not the choice for the people between mass unemployment resulting from Tory policy and full employment resulting from the Government's policy?

Mr. Benn: I agree with the latter part of what my hon. Friend said. On the aviation side, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is the Minister responsible, as indeed he is on the holiday side, and we have been working together on this problem. But the problem comes back to the Department of Industry in terms of the possible effect of the energy crisis on world airlines and pushes back into the aircraft industry. Several Departments, including the Department of Employment, are involved.

Mr. John Davies: Will the Secretary of State be kind enough to give the House an assurance that, having decided to salvage this series of companies, he will not, following his previous habit, allow shipyards which he has picked up into national ownership to be submerged by inadequacy of management and finance, as in the case of Upper Clyde?

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman was the personal architect of the legislation which I am using, and I pay a warm tribute to him for making it possible for me to do this. He is also the architect of the legislation that is permitting these yards to continue an active modernisa

tion programme. He will know that they are profitable yards that will be a great asset to the public sector.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hattersley.

Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The statement made by the Secretary of State for Industry concerns millions of holidaymakers. Not a single question has been asked on the subject of reassuring those holidaymakers.

Mr. Speaker: I have to protect the time of the House. We have spent 20 minutes on the statement. We have another statement which will take a considerable amount of time, we have to discuss a Ten-Minute Rule Bill and there is a Supply Day debate to which I understand the Opposition pay great importance. I must protect the Business of the House. Mr. Hattersley.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (BUSINESS)

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about business to be taken in the Council of Ministers of the European Community during July.
For some time written forecasts of Council business have been deposited in the Vote Office towards the end of each month. The forecast for July was deposited this morning. On 2nd May my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council told the House that the Government intended to implement the Foster Committee's recommendation that there should be an accompanying oral statement. Today's statement is, therefore, the first of a regular series. These statements will normally be made on the last Wednesday of each month. They will provide the House with a regular opportunity to seek clarification of the programmes and timing of Community work.
At present four meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed in July. Finance Ministers will meet on 15th July, Agricultural Ministers on 15th and 16th July, Development Ministers on 16th July and Foreign Ministers on 22nd and 23rd July.—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has pressed strongly for this kind of statement to be made. I think that hon. Members ought to listen to it.

Mr. Hattersley: It is expected that the Finance Ministers will be mainly concerned with the economic situation in the member States of the Community and joint action to be taken against inflation. They are expected to consider Commission proposals for economic and monetary measures. It is the Government's intention that before this meeting the House will have an opportunity to debate these matters, to which the Scrutiny Committee has drawn attention.
The Agriculture Council will continue its examination of the problems which have arisen on Community markets for beef, pigmeat and wine. It is now unlikely to consider in detail the future Community sugar régime since revised proposals are not expected to be available in time.
Development Co-operation Ministers will continue the discussion of a Community contribution to the United Nations emergency measures for those less-developed countries most hit by the oil price rises. On aid to non-associates, Ministers will consider the framework for the Community's overall aid policy including the achievement of a satisfactory balance in the distribution of Community aid. This was called for at our initiative by the Council in April and was discussed for the first time by the Development Council on 13th June.
The Foreign Ministers' Council will have a lengthy agenda. The Council may consider an interim report on the matters raised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 4th June. Other important items are likely to be improvements to the Community's scheme of generalised preferences for imports from the developing countries and the Community's negotiations with Commonwealth and other developing countries eligible for association with the Community under Protocol 22 of the Treaty of Accession. The Council will be preparing for the proposed joint meeting between Community Ministers and Ministers of the Protocol 22 countries in Jamaica at the end of July.
The Commission document on strategy for an energy policy may also be on the

agenda. In addition, the Council may have a further exchange with the European Assembly on the package concerning the Assembly's budgetary powers which the Council provisionally agreed on 4th June.

Mr. Rippon: I thank the Minister of State for his statement, to which I think no one can take exception. May we have an assurance that future statements will be more informative?
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House will require more than a preview of the headings of the agenda of a series of meetings about which we all know? Will he confirm that the debate which is to take place before the Finance Ministers' meeting will be wide ranging and general, or does he envisage it being limited to matters of detail which have arisen as a result of various regulations and directives that the Commission is currently considering and that the Council of Ministers is likely to have drawn to its attention?
May we have some further information at some stage about the consultations with Commonwealth countries on the extension of the generalised preference scheme and the implementation of Protocol 22? At Question Time the Minister said that many Commonwealth countries wished us to remain members of the Community. Will he clarify that statement and make it clear that no member of the Commonwealth has suggested that it would be better off if we were outside the Community? On the other hand, will he ensure that the House has full information about the ways in which Commonwealth countries believe that the current negotiations can secure the effective implementation of the terms of the treaty? In particular, will he give us further information on what New Zealand is now seeking?

Mr. Hattersley: It is impossible in this kind of statement to the House—I believe that the Foster Committee envisaged this—to give more information than I have given today. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that some of his hon. Friends—as well as some of my hon. Friends—regard today's statement as too long rather than too short. Our intention was to model it as best we could on the Thursday Business statement. That is what we did today and will continue to do.
The economic debate which we promised will be concerned essentially with the guidelines of Community economic policy to which the Scrutiny Committee has drawn attention. It is not for me to say how wide that debate will be allowed to go. The terms of the guidelines are so wide that it is inconceivable that any hon. Member who wants to raise a matter concerning Community or British economic policy will be unable to do so.
I fear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is early slipping into the habit of asking questions on the substance of negotiations at a time which is supposed to be devoted to the timetable. I assure him that in the Council we shall continue to pursue our renegotiation aims, and the interests of the Commonwealth are part of them.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government support the demand by the European Assembly for increased budgetary powers? If so, may I ask whether the Assembly is expected to carry out those powers without a full British delegation?

Mr. Hattersley: The Assembly submitted proposals for increased budgetary powers a month ago. The Council of Foreign Ministers, including my right hon. Friend, agreed that those proposals should be accepted in modified form, but the British Government made it clear that they could not ratify any treaty that might be involved until the renegotiation issue was solved one way or another. The Assembly is not altogether satisfied with the amendments made by the Council to its proposals. In my statement I have just explained that it may put forward new proposals next month. I do not think that we ought to comment on our attitude to the proposals until we have studied them.

Mr. Jay: Is my hon. Friend aware that the work of the Scrutiny Committee, to which he referred, is made more difficult by the fact that what purports to be the legislative agenda of the Council of Ministers is frequently altered, often as late as within 24 hours of the meeting? As long as we are members of this organisation, may we be assured that he will try to ensure that a more civilised procedure for legislation is followed?

Mr. Hattersley: I have the greatest sympathy with the point made by my right hon. Friend. The work of the Council of Ministers is often complicated by the way in which the agenda is changed almost at the last moment. In the interests of the Council, the Government and the Scrutiny Committee, we do our best to improve the procedure, and we shall continue to do our best to improve it in future.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Are we to have no report on the discussions which took place yesterday on the association of Mediterranean countries? That seems to have been an important debate. In particular—a point which concerns my constituents—may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman has any report to make on the progress of negotiations about the admission of Turkish textiles, a matter that is causing great concern in Lancashire?

Mr. Hattersley: It was my view and that of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that, after a long period of questions devoted specifically to EEC matters, including some related to the renegotiation of terms, and to yesterday's meeting, the House would not want a statement on future European business to be followed by a statement on European business that took place yesterday. It would be unreasonable to assume that every Council meeting of every category would be followed by a statement in this House. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there was a great temptation to make a statement on the Mediterranean agreement as the British delegation—not me, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade—acquitted itself with great candour and valour in robustly protecting the interests of the British housewife.

Mr. English: Has my hon. Friend seen yesterday's Press report stating that the Foreign Secretary has agreed to complete a questionnaire on political union which includes such questions as this: should the legislature have two chambers? and, how should it be elected? Is he aware that this questionnaire has never been published? Will he arrange for it to be published?

Mr. Hattersley: I cannot arrange for it to be published, but I can give my hon. Friend some assurances about it. The


questionnaire includes every question which every member State thought might be included. It does not comprise simply the decisions of the Council of Ministers on what are appropriate or inappropriate questions but puts together every question in one document.
I can give my hon. Friend two assurances—first, that the questionnaire is about to be received, and, secondly, that in due course it will be answered.

Mr. John Davies: Whilst I much appreciate the Minister of State's reassurance on the subject of the economic debate to take place before the next meeting of the Finance Ministers, may I ask whether it is probable from what he has said that there will be further Commission proposals coming forward in relation to these important economic matters as a result of meetings taking place at official level between now and then?
Can the House be assured that any such proposals will be brought forward in time so that they can be adequately debated in the debate to which I have referred? I fear that otherwise we shall be debating out-of-date papers which had been completely overtaken by the subsequent proposals of the Commission.

Mr. Hattersley: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point exactly. We shall do our best to arrive at that situation.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the problem referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. North (Mr. Jay), which involves what I might call the administrative hurry into which the Commission and the Council some times get themselves which may make this task impossible.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks forward to the debate as an opportunity to give him guidance on a variety of Community economic matters. We want to make it as clear as possible.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members do not share the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) that the Minister's statement to the House today was inadequate? It was a comprehensive statement, and we welcome the fact that there is to be a debate next week on the matter raised in the first

report of the Scrutiny Committee. Other recommendations are yet to come from the Committee.
The question of the budgetary provisions, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) has not yet come before the Scrutiny Committee. I ask my hon. Friend to agree urgently that this ought to be a separate item for debate in the House before we rise for the recess. It was not a specific recommendation of the Committee, but there is no reason why the Government should not point out items of significance which we have not time fully to consider.

Mr. Hattersley: The crucial decision about some budgetary powers was taken before the Scrutiny Committee was set up, otherwise the Committee might have wanted to consider it. However, the Scrutiny Committee in another place has considered it. I gave evidence to that Committee. The matter raised by my hon. Friend about a debate is one for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that environment Ministers will be meeting some time in July to consider anti-pollution measures passed by the European Parliament and proposals, which I gather are new proposals, coming forward concerning regional policy? Can the hon. Gentleman say exactly when in July the Ministers will be meeting?

Mr. Hattersley: The pollution question—the Paris Convention—is being discussed in July. There is no expectation that any Council Ministers will be considering regional matters, regional policy and the regional fund, next month, but these questions will continue to be discussed at official level.

Mr. Hooley: Can any steps be taken to hasten the contribution by the Community to the United Nations fund for compensating developing countries for the problems resulting from the rising oil prices? Is there to be a further discussion next month on the general scheme of preferences, which has been widely criticised as inadequate?

Mr. Hattersley: Both these matters are to be discussed next month and were indeed mentioned in my statement. However, I fear that I may have delivered the


statement at such a speed that it is understandable if my hon. Friend did not become aware of this point.

Mr. Body: Can the Minister say whether any member of the Commonwealth, or any country in the third world, has to date expressed any regret regarding the renegotiation stand so far taken by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to answer questions of substance. If I could think of an alternative to the phrase "Not next week", that is the answer I would give him.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The Minister has said that the Foreign Ministers will not be meeting until 22nd and 23rd July. Would the Government consult urgently with other Governments concerned about a matter of mutual concern, namely, action to be taken about the activities of Soviet spy ships in relation to oil rigs in the North Sea? This is a matter of great importance to us.

Mr. Hattersley: That is a classic business question and is not a point which would necessarily or appropriately be discussed by any of the bodies to which I have referred.

Mr. Marten: Is the Minister aware that one of the anxieties, regardless of whether one is a pro-marketeer or an anti-marketeer, is that regulations might get slipped through at the Council meetings? Would it therefore be possible to append to the list of meetings a list of draft regulations or directives which might be coming up for decision so as to enable the House to consider these before they arise?

Mr. Hattersley: We are doing our best on all these matters and are doing something which is by any standards a constitutional innovation in the House. We are publishing a written statement in the Vote Office, which hon. Members may obtain, consider and discuss, and are making statements virtually every month. We have set up a complicated system of committees which enable the House to scrutinise all these matters. I am not sure how much further we can go on all these fronts.

Mr. Brewis: Will the Law of the Sea Conference be discussed at the next Foreign Ministers meeting? Is it the

case that British reservations have prevented a common position being debated by the EEC? What are these reservations? Are not the British Government treating the conference in a cavalier fashion?

Mr. Hattersley: There have been no such reservations during my attendance at the Council of Foreign Ministers. Those attendances amount to every Council of Foreign Ministers during the life of the present Government. The Law of the Sea Conference will not be considered at the next Foreign Ministers' Council meeting. I am open to correction, but I believe that the Caracas meeting is before the Council of Ministers meets at the end of July. Therefore the timing would not be appropriate. In any case, there is a derogation from Community policy regarding fishing and other matters which puts Great Britain in a special position until 1982.

Mr. Blaker: The Minister said that he did not expect the regional policy question to come before the Council in the next month. Will he confirm that the Government are not putting any block on proposals for new action by the Council? In particular, will he see whether we can make speed on the proposals for a regional development fund, which, when adopted, will he of great benefit to this country?

Mr. Hattersley: I am happy to do that. There has been a great deal of Press comment suggesting that vetoes in the Council are possible or have taken place, but neither suggestion is true. The regional fund and policy constitute a complicated matter and are inevitably involved in renegotiation because they are connected with the budget.
Complicated discussions are taking place at official level in the Community. British Ministers are not stopping them from coming to an early conclusion.

Mr. Moate: Will the next Council of Ministers meeting consider further the question of the Mediterranean agreement mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cook)? I think particularly of the report of an agreement to impose tariffs on citrus fruit coming into this country, which appears to run counter to the categorical pledge by the Government


not to impose new food taxes while renegotiations proceed?

Mr. Hattersley: The negotiations on Mediterranean policy were virtually completed yesterday, but not absolutely completed. The President of the Council said that he hoped that this matter would not return to the Council of Foreign Ministers but that any outstanding details could be finalised by the committee of permanent representatives.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has protected the British housewife in literally every commodity and has substantially protected her in most. That is a cause to congratulate him, rather than for criticism.

Mr. Biffen: When considering future arrangements for reporting to the House on the outcome of meetings of the Council of Ministers, will the Minister resist the temptation to put much faith in Question Time as an alternative to a ministerial statement? What passed for Question Time today did not enable any such examination to take place upon the important point of the Mediterranean trade arrangement raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate).
Will the Minister bear in mind that, irrespective of one's views of Community membership, the kind of discussion that took place yesterday ought properly to be the subject of a statement in the House?

Mr. Hattersley: The Government, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, are anxious to meet the wishes of the House on these matters. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that there is a tendency, particularly

among seconds in Departments when the head is away, to incline to make statements rather than not make statements. We consider that a third statement to the House today would not be appropriate. However, if the House believes it to be right that more statements should be made, we shall of course consider such wishes.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 12th JULY

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk.
Mr. Stephen Hastings.
Mr. Hamish Gray.

BILL PRESENTED

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY (No. 2) BILL

Mr. Secretary Jenkins, supported by Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary Rees, Dr. John Gilbert and Mr. Alexander W. Lyon, presented a Bill to extend from 31st July 1976 to 31st July 1979 the date until which the Independent Broadcasting Authority are to provide television and local sound broadcasting services; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to the Standing Order (Statutory Instruments),
That the draft County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Question agreed to.

PROTECTION FROM SLUM LANDLORDS BILL

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the sale by rental-purchase or otherwise of residential property which has been designated as being within an area where properties are subject to compulsory purchase orders or where the local authority is unable to grant a home improvement grant by reason properties are subject to compulsory purchase of the life expectancy of the property; and to make miscellaneous provisions regarding the renting of similar property.
The rental purchase of houses is the system whereby property which is normally subject to rent control and which is not usually eligible for finance for purchase from customary sources, such as building societies and local authorities, is sold by a system of weekly payments, sometimes including the payment of a small deposit—rarely more than £100, and often much less.
The system is widespread in such cities as Liverpool, Manchester and Hull and parts of Scotland. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and to Shelter, Scotland, for information concerning this racket in Glasgow and Edinburgh.
It is not a new phenomenon in the North, although it is spreading rapidly because of the cut-back in both public and private house building over the past few years. It has helped in part to supply cheap housing and to give people an opportunity to acquire their own homes. That is the only justification or defence of the system.
In fact, we are concerned today with property owners and agents dealing with miserable properties, selling substandard accommodation, often on onerous terms, to the poor and the young, often very young married couples desperate for a home, people who have fallen on bad times, people not used to consulting or even knowing solicitors, and desperately quick to grab an opportunity to secure a roof, albeit a leaky roof, over their heads—people, in short, who are easy prey for the unscrupulous.
The properties sold are in areas likely to be subject to compulsory purchase orders, if not areas already so subject, designated, or presented to the Minister

for confirmation for compulsory purchase orders.
A case in my own constituency will illustrate the problem. A Mr. and Mrs. Leonard, of 20, Holme Street, approached the Welfare Rights stall in Hull Market run by students from the university, who referred the case to me. The tatty document which I am holding is a copy of the form of an agreement given to my constituents. It contains the terms upon which they were to purchase the house by weekly instalments. The price is shown as £550, payable at £2·50 a week. On 21 days' default in payments, the outstanding balance becomes due, and if it is not paid the landlord may repossess. The purchaser is responsible for repairs, rates, drains, sanitary fittings and so on. There is no right to sublet unless the balance of the purchase price is paid. Of course, there is the customary fire insurance. There is a final clause, to which I shall return later, which says:
The Vendor agrees that if the property is acquired by the Hull Corporation on a Compulsory Purchase Order the above agreement will be cancelled and will become null and void and the Purchaser agrees that the Vendor will be entitled to claim all compensation".
The rent officer was telephoned for his assessment of a fair rent. He said that on a similar property it was about £1·85 and certainly not more than £2. My constituent is paying £2·50. I wrote to the vendor, William Isaac Estates Ltd. at The Boulevard, Hull, asking it to explain the agreement to me. The director replied saying that I had written him an offensive letter. I find that surprising because I thought that in the circumstances my correspondence was rather mild. He said:
I am a lifelong Socialist"—
with friends like that, what need have we of Wedgie?—
and have helped numerous couples to obtain accommodation. With regard to your comments about the way the property was sold, in that we were no longer responsible for repairs, etc., I would once again offer my advice in asking you to check with other property people in this city, when you may learn that this method of sale has helped many thousands of young couples to become property owners on simple no-deposit terms, and if you were a local man you would know of this.
I confess that I have lived in Hull only since 1952.
I now turn to the clause concerning compulsory purchase, to which I referred


earlier, to see how the firm helped my constituents to become property owners. Concerned about their situation, my constituents went to Hull Corporation to discover their chances of being rehoused by the corporation. They were told in a letter from the director of housing:
I note that you took up possession of the dwelling you now occupy after the confirmation of the above Compulsory Purchase Order.
That is, the house was in a compulsory purchase order area.
I would advise you that this order was confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment on 20th March 1973 and a Notice to this effect was published in the Hull Daily Mail on 30th March 1973 As you took up occupation after the former date I must advise you that the local authority is under no obligatoin to offer you alternative accommodation.
The form of agreement was signed on 23rd June, three months after the confirmation of the compulsory purchase order. So much for Messrs. Isaac helping my constituents to become property owners!
I wrote to the firm, as lifelong Socialists, in April, asking it to explain this apparent anomaly. I still await a reply.
It may well be that the agreement is not binding in law, and that any solicitor could drive a coach and horses through it. But that is not the point. It is the sort of agreement being given to people in desperate conditions, not knowing what they are signing, people who are the prey of unscrupulous landlords. In that situation, the House needs to act.
I sum up the position. The landlord is in the following situation. He has evaded rent control and his common law and statutory obligations for repairs. He is under no obligation to rehouse the

tenants. There is possibly tax evasion, because of the system of repayment of capital. All this is done at the expense of the poor and the homeless.
My Bill would outlaw some of these alleged conveyancing practices and prevent the sale of properties for habitation without (a) a certificate of good repair from the local authority or (b) an undertaking from the local authority that the property is, or is assumed to be, lacking in a basic amenity and will, therefore, qualify for an improvement grant. That would guarantee the property a certain lifetime. Further, restrictions would be placed on the reletting of properties subject to compulsory purchase orders and effected after the confirmation or presentation thereof.
This is an opportunity to strike a blow against racketeers operating just within the law at the expense of the needy and defenceless.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. McNamara, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Robin F. Cook, Mr. Tom Ellis, Mr. George, Mr. Russell Kerr, Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. Marks, Mr. Newens, Mr. Prescott, Mr. Arnold Shaw, Mr. Stallard.

PROTECTION FROM SLUM LANDLORDS

Mr. McNamara accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the sale by rental-purchase or otherwise of residential property which has been designated as being within an area where properties are subject to compulsory purchase orders or where the local authority is unable to grant a home improvement grant by reason of the life expectancy of the property; and to make miscellaneous provisions regarding the renting of similar property; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next, 28th June, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and others.
Thirty-one right hon. and hon. Members have asked to speak in this debate.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: I beg to move,
That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps, especially in the livestock sector, to safeguard the future supplies of home grown food for the consumer.
If the prime duty of a Government is to defend the realm, their next duty is to ensure adequate supplies of food for the population. This is a responsibility of world importance as well as national importance.
Over many decades, we in Britain have been fortunate in being able to obtain plentiful supplies of food from other countries at advantageous prices. Those supplies are not quite so readily available now and the era of cheap food is over.
In those circumstances an increasing supply of home-grown food takes on an even greater significance than before, not dissimilar to the necessities of war-time conditions. I do not have to spell out the reasons because the House is well aware of them. During the last war there was a massive increase in production and since then successive Governments have helped agriculture to become the highly efficient industry it is today.
In the 1960s there was a period of comparative stagnation. In 1970 the last Government set about the task of further large-scale expansion. I gave the figures of that expansion in the last debate. They are on record for all to see. In round terms the net product went up by about 25 per cent. in the last five years, which was a remarkable achievement by all those who work on the land.
We pursued that policy because it was, as it still is, in the national interest to increase the supply of home-grown food for the benefit and advantage of every family in the land both directly as consumers and indirectly as citizens of the United Kingdom. That increase was not achieved quickly or easily. That is not possible because of the nature of the industry. It took time, patience and the will to do it.
What we are witnessing now, and what we criticised so vehemently, is the strangulation of that expansion.
Those who have devoted their time to creating or building up an enterprise, be it farming or anything else, can be forgiven for feeling angry or cheated when through no fault of their own they see the fruits of their labour destroyed before their very eyes.
The charge the right hon. Gentleman has to answer today is that through misjudgment or inactivity, or because of the political requirements of his colleagues, he is wrecking the home food expansion programme.
We know the right hon. Gentleman. We know his heart lies with the industry. We do not doubt that. But he must be the unhappiest man on the unhappiest Treasury Bench this House has known for a long time. I am sorry about that personally, but it does not matter very much. What matters is the safeguarding of the supplies of food for our people The right hon. Gentleman is not doing that. That is why we press him today to take immediate action.
In the past few months I confess to discovering one problem, that of conveying to most families in Britain the direct connection between what is happening on our farms today and what the implications of this are for the shopping basket in 1975, 1976 and beyond. If it were not so difficult, if people only realised the implications, there would be such a protest around the right hon. Gentleman's ears that he would have an even hotter time than he has already. It is because people are not aware, because food has always just turned up on the shelves, and because the right hon. Gentleman has felt apparently that he can afford to ignore the protests of the farmers that he has survived for the moment.
Let me put this on the record today. The right hon. Gentleman is not at present safeguarding the future supply of home-grown food for the consumer. It is perilously late to retrieve the situation, but retrieved it must be.
The first mistake of the right hon. Gentleman was the 23rd March agreement. I have acknowledged previously the difficulties facing him when taking over in mid-stream a negotiation already in hand and begun by somebody else. That is not easy, I know. But he settled an arrangement which he ought to have known would be damaging and unacceptable to beef producers. He has acknowledged this mistake in his statement last week to the extent that he altered the guide price for beef to what he should have agreed in March. That alteration by itself, without intervention, is of no value, but, unfortunately, it is too late now. The damage has been done, with subsidised cattle coming in from Europe and affecting our markets.
I have heard tell of one foreign dealer who has purchased 4,000 head of cattle to ship to our markets this week, all with the benefit of the higher subsidy to be paid out of Community funds until the end of this week.
The depression that the flood of imports causes to our markets ought surely to give real urgency to a decision by this House on the O'Brien Report, because our producers are suffering both ways at present.
The first aspect of what the Minister described last March as a reasonable settlement was the removal of any floor in the beef market. That knocked the confidence out of the producers, and its psychological effect has been appalling. We warned him of that at the time, and ever since then. Last week he had to say he would support the market. He ought never to have taken all the guarantees away, whatever his view on intervention.
When we took the guarantee away we did so on the clear understanding that it was replaced by the guarantee in the common agricultural policy. That was a solemn undertaking. We stick to that.
Today the Minister must say how and when and at what level the support will operate, a question he did not answer last week.
When the right hon. Gentleman made a statement I welcomed that part of it dealing with long-term matters in relation to the common agricultural policy. He made proposals for a new regime for beef involving variable subsidies and grants. I support the ongoing process of modification and agree that these and other proposals should be fully considered in the Community institutions by Community procedures. But what is not practicable or acceptable is that there should be any delay in taking emergency interim measures now. The situation we have arrived at demands that. The crisis is occurring now, not next April, which the Minister talked of. We must get to next April. The Minister will support the market meanwhile, so there is no time to work out anything very new or sophisticated. With the further falls in the market in the past two weeks something simple and immediate is required.
Will the Minister propose an immediate flat-rate slaughter premium, or a variable one as he has suggested, or a combination of both? Something on those lines is necessary now.
We read in the Press this week that some of the Minister's senior officials are to-ing and fro-ing to Brussels. We hope he will have an immediate success to report.
When we left office the market price for fat cattle averaged £19 per cwt. This week the average is £17·22. It is a copper or two up on last week's price. But some markets are well below that.
Yesterday I received a letter from the Carmarthenshire branch of the National Farmers' Union setting out its position. It reads:
Slaughter of calves is running at the rate of 3 to 1. as compared with twelve months ago. There will inevitably be a shortage of beef within eighteen months.
It continues:
last week only 1 store animal in 4 attracted a bid … 75 per cent. were returned unsold. … the price of beef was to £13 per cwt.—more than £5 per cwt. less than the cost of production.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Lancashire, very close to my own home, three calves were sold for a total of 77p? I have a photograph of one which realised a net 9p.

Mr. Pym: I saw that report, which my hon. Friend drew to my attention.
In a number of markets the prices have fallen very low. In Northern Ireland the situation is bad. The price there dropped several pounds over the last two weeks. The average is now £16·30 per cwt. In addition, the Northern Ireland farmers will lose their £1·76 per cwt subsidy given them by the right hon. Gentleman as a result of his March negotiations. That was a good feature of those negotiations. But the slaughter rate is still too high for the protection of future supplies and the slaughterhouses are uncomfortably overloaded. We wish to know how the Government will sustain the market and stop the rot.
The pig sector is in similar difficulties. I have acknowledged on an earlier occasion the problems which arose last autumn and winter. Pig producers made good profits last year, and, despite high feed costs, were not losing money between November and January.
In January and February my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) was actively engaged in negotiating a lasting deal. We fully recognised the need for action, and we were taking it. The Minister's action in March was inadequate and short term. He hoped—so did I—that the subsidy for pigs would do the trick. It did not succeed as he had to admit last week. In fact, the subsidy has had little effect. Slaughter continues at a very high level. In the first two weeks of June this year 18,200 were slaughtered, compared with 12,800 last year. Of course, we welcome the extension of the subsidy, but, again, it is short term and markets have dropped, so that half of the subsidy has been eroded already. Prices this week have dipped to £2·56 per live score. Will the Minister take account of this and increase the subsidy to make good the fall? That would certainly make extra help immediately available.
I am sure that I share the Minister's desire to get back to a sound long-term policy for pig producers. What work has he done to bring back a feed formula? This matter should be re-examined in today's conditions of cost explosion. The Labour Opposition raised no doubts or representations about it before, and circumstances have changed. When circum

stances change it is right to re-examine. What will be the position in October and November? It must be little less than a gamble for a producer to make replacement plans when he does not know what is going to happen when the subsidy ends. I know that the Minister does not deny the problems, and producers will be anxiously and hopefully waiting to hear what he says today.
This is a difficult year for sugar, and 1975 could be even more critical. There is a world problem here. I would like to know, first, what are the prospects of receiving 1·4 million tons under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement this year. All sides of the House support the agreement, but with world prices more than £100 a ton above the price paid to Commonwealth producers there is a risk that we shall not see full delivery. The Government must take urgent steps to ascertain what deliveries will be and what the producer countries expect to be able to achieve. I hope that the Government can do a deal with Australia. My right hon. Friend was working to achieve this, but the amount involved is not so great, and that brings me to the importance of the home market.
Unfortunately, the crop will be down this year in quantity and, therefore, in profitability. I understand that the fall is estimated to be about 15 per cent. But the need for more home-grown sugar will be even greater next year, and to achieve that increase two things are necessary. First, we must ensure that there is a full take-up of the acreage available, and that means advancing the price to a more realistic level compared with world and Community prices and in relation to cereal prices. I suggest that for next year we should give our farmers the same level of remuneration for their beet as that paid to farmers in the rest of the Community, and that will safeguard future supplies.
The second thing which needs to be done is to take decisions on acreage and price in the next few weeks, so that farmers will be able to see that sugar will be a worthwhile crop to grow next year and can plan accordingly. Obviously, an adequate supply of sugar is essential, and the home-grown crop is of great importance agriculturally.
Will the Minister give us his assessments and intentions for poultry? Poultry meat producers are losing about 3p a


pound, and processers are sharing this loss in an effort to maintain supplies and employment. Egg producers now face losses of about 7p a dozen, and there is a consequent increase in the slaughter of laying birds, which further depresses the poultry market. Again, the basic cause is the price of feeding stuffs, but an adequate supply must be ensured, and I am told that chick placings in the first half of June are well down.
We also face shortages in the milk market, not only for liquid milk but, even more, for manufacturing milk. The subsidy, reckoned to increase demand for liquid milk by 30 million gallons, is a very uneven and ineffective method of helping those in need. Subsidies on cheese and butter will put up demand for these products, which will become in even shorter supply. What steps is the Minister proposing to safeguard the national dairy herd and encourage producers to expand milk production? Of all the commodities it seems that milk is the one where a shortage will hit the consumer most abruptly.
I come now to the horticulture sector, with its dependence on oil. Undoubtedly, the 6p a gallon reducing to 4p has been a real benefit to growers, but what do the Government intend to do at the end of the period? I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to leave a vacuum thereafter. Oil prices continue to rise, and the industry is concerned to know upon what basis it can claim from the end of the current scheme. If the Minister or the Secretary of State for Scotland could say something about that this afternoon it would be helpful.
Some of the difficulties of the industry derive from the fact that we face the same costs as Community producers, and in some cases much higher cost rises than other Community countries, but we do not enjoy the same prices. The time has come to consider an acceleration of the transitional period on a selective basis. Certainly the industry wanted such a transition period originally, but now a faster transition would be sensible in the circumstances to safeguard supplies. I recognise that problems can arise for consumers in certain commodities, but they arise for producers, too, and that is why I suggest a selective approach.
In view of the difficulties being faced in other countries as well as in Britain,

and the problems that have been created by the enormous increases in cereal, oil and other prices, ought we not to be working towards a special review in the Community sometime later this summer or in the early autumn?
I cannot recall a time of so much widespread anxiety and concern in farming. The worries of the industry are deep and the present situation need never have arisen. It is bad for the farmers and the farm workers—

Mr. Thomas Torney: Your Government took us into the Common Market.

Mr. Pym: I totally reject what the hon. Member said. The Labour Party made no representations of any kind and my right hon. Friend certainly would have negotiated a satisfactory arrangement for the farmers. I totally repudiate his sedentary intervention. But the real significance of the present state of the industry lies in the risks for the consumer in the future. In the Queen's Speech and again last week in an article in my part of the world the Minister stated his aim of encouraging the maximum economic production of food in the interests of the national economy. That aim, so far from being fulfilled, is, under his authority, far less likely to be achieved. On 25th March he spoke of safeguarding future supplies of food, but he knows now that what he decided then has not provided any safeguard—quite the reverse.
I am glad that last week the right hon. Gentleman went back on some of his March negotiations and that he intends to sustain the beef market, but he has much more work to do yet. He has an opportunity here and now to spell out the Government's programme for restoring confidence and securing once again future supplies of home-grown food.
The motion calls upon the Government to take the immediate steps that are necessary, and we sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that and will take them. If he does not, if he fails to take this opportunity, a heavy responsibility will lie on his shoulders, and every family in the land will suffer as a result.

4.40 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): The right


hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has made a rather intemperate speech. [Interruption.] I should like to follow the debating points on it if hon. Members will listen. I listened very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said. He spoke about food production records in the post-war period. I would remind him that it was a Labour Government who laid down the basis of the legislation which gave the farming community long-term guaranteed prices and assurances. It is since his Government came into power that many of those guarantees have been ended.

Mr. Pym: Mr. Pym
rose—

Mr. Peart: I have only just started. After all, the right hon. Gentleman hits hard. As he knows, I am always courteous but I have a right to reply to him.
I recognise that this is an important debate. When we debated the state of agriculture on 8th May, as the right hon. Gentleman said, I outlined the Government's approach to agricultural policy, just as the right hon. Gentleman has outlined his party's broad approach. I was then able to set out in broad terms the Government's approach. I said that our aim was to encourage the maximum economic production of food from the land in the interests of the national economy. That is the aim which will determine everything we do.
I want today to remind the House of the situation which had developed during last autumn and winter, to outline what we have done to grapple with the problems we found on taking office, and to say something about our intention to ensure that the industry can make its full contribution to our food supply and to our economy. We look to the farming industry to provide an increasing proportion of the nation's food. That is why we are determined to do everything that is necessary to restore confidence to the industry and to regain the momentum of expansion that was lost last winter.
The difficulties in the livestock sector began when the price of cereal feed went up sharply last autumn. I do not blame the previous Government for that. It was the effect of developments on the world market over which they had no control. But I do blame them for their inaction during the long winter months.

By the beginning of March the damage was there for all to see. By March the dairy herd had fallen in numbers and was producing 6 per cent. less milk than a year before. A belated attempt to recover the position had been made at the annual price review, but by then the damage had been done.
Pig producers had been in difficulties for months, yet nothing had been done to help them. The feed formula had been abandoned just when it was about to be needed. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that I should bring back the feed formula. The decision to end it was a decision of his Government. He was Chief Whip or a Minister at that time, and it was his Government which ended it. The December livestock inquiry showed that the breeding herd had declined since September. Through January and February pig prices continued to fall and the sow slaughtering rate rose. We now know that by March the herd had fallen by 9 per cent. since September, yet nothing was done.
In the beef sector, the previous Government accepted the ending of the guarantee arrangements, the tried and tested system of support which until then had given the beef producer a firm assurance of fair returns. The Conservative Party now claims that it would have replaced this assurance by a system of permanent intervention. I shall say later what I think of that.
This, then, was the situation we found. The dairy herd and milk production were down because action had been too long delayed. The pig breeding herd had been cut back because no action had been taken to relieve the difficulties of pig producers. The beef producer was left with only the possibility of intervention.
What I say today will be concentrated on those three commodities—milk, pigs and beef; and I will deal with some of the questions which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me. As he quite rightly said, my right hon. Friend will deal with others when he replies, if he has the time.
I should like to deal with two examples where the Government have taken effective action to assure supplies, and I will touch briefly on other livestock commodities. I remember the right hon. Gentleman in a previous debate using the phrase, "You are tinkering with the situation". He will recall that I


anounced on 11th April the introduction of a temporary subsidy on oils used for glasshouse heating. This was needed to cushion the immediate impact of the sharp increases in the prices of fuel oils which are such an important element in the cost of producing glasshouse crops. Our provisional estimate of the cost of the subsidy is £7 million. That was a major decision and what we did for our farmers was far more generous than was done in other parts of the Community. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to look at it again in relation to the conditions, and I will always do so—but we did provide the subsidy.
I come now to the lime subsidy. I have looked again at the decision of the last Government to end the lime and fertiliser subsidies. I can understand their decision on the fertiliser subsidy, where the subsidy was very small in relation to the price. But I would say to the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative Party that I find it quite incomprehensible that they should have decided to end the lime subsidy. I believe that many hon. Members in his own party—and I know the Liberal Party have felt very strongly on this—feel that a wrong decision was made. I believe that this subsidy is an investment in the structure of the soil and in the future supply of food, particularly from the hill areas. I represent some of those areas and know some of their problems.
It is not true to say that I have refused to talk to the farmers.

Mr. Pym: I did not say that.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman used strong language and said that I had ignored their protests. I have never ignored what they said, even when they have spoken strongly to me. I have always considered their point of view and do so still, with the NFU and through regular contacts.
I believe that the lime subsidy is an investment in the structure of the soil, for without adequate liming the soil would be impoverished and our national resources depleted. I regard the termination of the subsidy now as a thoroughly bad and shortsighted decision and I have therefore decided to reverse it. I propose to continue the lime subsidy at its present level. The cost, £5 million, is in my

view an excellent investment—[An HON. MEMBER: "Waste"]—Somebody said "waste". I do not believe it. An Extension of Period Order will be needed and will be laid before the House in draft very shortly.
I turn now to poultry, eggs and sheep. The poultry industry is going through a difficult period. Feed costs are high and margins and prices are below the peaks of a few months ago. I am confident that the poultry meat industry will see its problems through and bring production into line with future demand. Theirs is a short production cycle. The egg cycle is longer, as Members will know, and more difficult for producers to control. We saw in 1973 how a long period of low returns can be followed by a doubling of prices and high profits. Violent fluctuations of that kind are undesirable, but essentially it is for producers themselves to try to moderate them. The Eggs Authority has given good advice and I hope that we shall avoid a repetition of the violent cycle of 1972 and 1973.
I turn now to sheep. Fat sheep prices have also fallen with an increase in supplies on the market. Prices have, of course, been exceptionally high for some time, and if they fall further producers will have the safeguard of the guaranteed price and deficiency payments. Again, I believe the long-term prospects are good.
I turn now to milk, pigs and beef, starting with milk. I have already referred to the situation last winter and to the action, which I support, that the last Government eventually took at the annual review to increase returns to the producer. In the months since the review milk production has not recovered as much as it might have done. That has been because of the effect of dry weather on the grass. But I recognise that the main concern of milk producers is over the level of profitability that they can expect for the year as a whole.
At this time it is not possible to predict what the outcome will be. The level of feed costs during the coming months and through the winter will be a crucial factor in this matter. There has been some easing of the prices of dairy compounds in recent weeks, but how prices will move in future will depend heavily on the cereals harvests in the northern hemisphere.
For the moment I would say only this to the dairy farmer: it is in the national interest that the dairy herd should expand and milk production increase. The long-term prospects are excellent. Our industry is more efficient than its counterparts in most other countries and we have a climate that suits milk production. The Government are committed to a policy of expanding agricultural production and will be looking to the dairy sector to play its full part. We shall be ready to do whatever is necessary to ensure that that aim is fulfilled.
I come to deal with pigs. When we came into office the most acute of the problems was that facing the pig producer. We therefore secured at once the agreement of the Council of Ministers to a special subsidy of 50p. per score deadweight. We then expected—and the industry and trade expected—that returns from pig production would improve materially within three or four months.
The period of subsidy was planned with that in mind. I agree with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire that the market did not improve. Instead, prices went down, and although the price of compound feed also went down a little, the pig producer was still in need of substantial direct help. We met the situation by retaining the full rate of 50p. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not easy to get a national direct subsidy from the Community. It is argued that such a subsidy operates aganst free competition. But I did it. I achieved that, and I think I was complimented by hon. Members. At last week's Council meeting in Luxembourg I again secured agreement to our continuing at that full rate until 1st September and then to phasing down over the following nine weeks into early November.
I remind the House that this special subsidy will have cost £30 million in all. I regard that as a considerable sum of money, a large amount of national aid. That is the measure of our determination to do what is necessary to relieve the worst effects of the pig cycle and to assure a future supply at a level that can be sustained.
I do not want to claim too much for the subsidy. I fully realise that even with this help many producers are not making profits. In a basically free market there are bound to be times when net

returns are low and times when they are high. Conservative Members are the great defenders of the policy of no State intervention and of free enterprise. The task of Government is to act promptly, as we did in relation to national aid, to prevent returns from going so low that future supply is put at serious risk. I introduced the subsidy as soon as I could, less than a month after taking office.
I very much wish that the previous Government had introduced it earlier. The Conservatives say now that they would have reduced the monetary compensatory amounts instead. But the monetary compensatory amounts now stand at less than 25p per score, and the reduction they had in mind could not have raised producer prices by even as much as that. It would have been no substitute for the prompt and effective help we were able to give.
I believe that prospects for the pig producer will improve. Pig marketings are certain to fall in the months ahead. The main competitors in our market—Denmark and the Irish Republic—have also had declining breeding herds, though the Danish herd may be on the up-turn now. Although the Continental pig market is weakening, ours should not.
Since March, too, compound feed prices have fallen by £4 per ton. Predicting future feed cost movements is always hazardous—especially at this time of the year—but feed prices seem more likely to go down than up.
Here I should like to pay tribute to the prompt response of the compound feed manufacturers to my recent plea that any falls in raw material prices should be passed on for the benefit of livestock producers. The prospects, therefore, are far from gloomy. If producers' total returns are still not all that they would wish, they are at least higher than they were earlier this year. No doubt these are the reasons why sow slaughterings have eased back below the rate we had before the subsidy came in. They are still higher than we want to see, but I hope that the falling trend will be maintained.
I come to the beef situation, the area where our immediate difficulties are greatest. It is, of course, the beef situation which is at the root of most of the current problems. The tone of the beef market sets the pattern for the meat


market generally. But the problems facing the beef sector have not developed suddenly over the past four months. Our beef herd has been expanding rapidly during the past year or so, and calf slaughterings had fallen to extremely low levels as farmers built up production.
As a result we were facing the prospect of an upsurge in marketing in the second half of the year. Thanks, partly to the weather, it is already with us. And the problems of the fatteners who are selling beef now are the greater because they paid high prices for calves and stores last year in the expectation that the market this year would be even firmer than it was then.
Much of the complaint about current losses comes from this factor. But the responsible people in the industry know that we cannot compensate for past errors of commercial judgment, however understandable they may have been. The Government's job is essentially to ensure long-term supplies. Nor is the problem of over-supply confined to Britain. Supplies of beef are increasing in other member countries and throughout the world.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
rose—

Mr. Peart: I am about to make a statement on beef in which I am sure the hon. Lady will be interested.
This prospect of difficult months for the beef fatteners had one obvious risk—that there would be a massive reaction depressing the price of stores and leading to a rate of calf slaughter that would mean a beef shortage within two years. We were determined to prevent that by direct action to secure the retention of calves for future production. We increased the rate of calf subsidy by £10 a calf. The first calves eligible for this higher payment will be coming forward in the next few days. The importance of this has been neglected while all eyes have been on the market price.
The calf subsidy increase was prompt action to ensure the future supply of food, and I believe it has been effective. Only yesterday the responsible Press drew attention to the merit of the action I have taken here. I agree, of course, that calf slaughterings are running at higher levels than during the last two years. But those were years of rapid expansion which have

led to the present over-supply. Calf slaughterings this year have been far lower than in the late 1960s, even though many more calves are being born now. The extra £35 million that the higher calf subsidy will cost is a real investment in the future.

Mr. Peter Mills: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I ask him whether, since his announcement that there was to be another £10 a head on calves, the rate of slaughter has decreased?

Mr. Peart: I am not prepared to commit myself to a figure as yet. I think it is a bit early to judge. The calves subject to the subsidy are just coming forward. This is welcomed by the industry. So, too, is the action we have taken to bring forward the date for the increase in our guide price to 1st July. The right hon. Gentleman twitted me a lot on that but I think he is glad I did it. From that date, our guide price will be £19·25 per live cwt. This will give a greater measure of protection against the pressure of beef supplies from the Continent and third countries and link our market more effectively to those in other member countries. But the future supply of beef can be fully assured only if the whole industry has confidence in future profitability. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
The sharp fall in market prices over the past fortnight has been a blow to that confidence. The basic problem is that more beef is coming on to the market than consumers are prepared to buy at prices that would give a fair return to the industry. This is an urgent problem. Unless the beef producer obtains a fair return, he will not go on providing the supplies that we need. It is also a Community problem. The best answer to those who say that we should have operated permanent intervention is to point to the beef markets of other member countries in the Community. For example, last week in the Irish Republic, where they have a higher guide price and permanent intervention, the market price was a good deal lower than the price in this country. All that intervention has done is to fill the stores of the Community with a degraded product, whose value has been much


reduced by the very process of intervention.
Even if permanent intervention had been successful in pushing up the market price, I would still regard it as a fundamentally wrong approach. Beef is for people to eat, not to pile up in stores. One does not cure an over-supply by choking off demand. I note that one of the responsible commentators in the Sunday Press described the whole European policy as being
… almost criminally out of control at a time when the threat of world food shortages grows steadily worse.
The whole Community, not simply the United Kingdom, must find a better way—some interim measure—to give beef producers the assurances which they need.
I outlined in Luxembourg the form that a long-term beef regime might take. But a long-term arrangement will take time and there is need for action now—not intervention policies which the right hon. Gentleman supports. I warned the Council last week that the Community might have to act quickly, and the events of recent days have proved that I was right to do so. I shall now be pressing the Commission and my colleagues in the Council to agree on some direct action to help.
I have instructed my officials to be in a state of readiness to undertake the necessary certification procedures for whatever arrangements are decided upon. I know this is what my friends in the union want. We need to be in a position to give producers the assurance over a period that their returns will not drop below about £18 per live cwt for clean quality cattle. That is the right way to deal with the problem of short-term over-supply.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome that statement by my right hon. Friend. Can he give some idea of the certification procedures which will have to be pursued and the time scale involved so that farmers may know when they will get "Peart premiums"?

Mr. Peart: As my hon. Friend will know, it is necessary to arrange for a country-wide network of certification of cattle in live and deadweight centres. We need to prepare the necessary documentation and payments. This is a complex

operation which needs careful preparation. I hope that the arrangements will be completed in about a month. I shall give farmers the support for which they are asking. I shall also suggest that the Community should do something as well. I hope that this is the right way to deal with the problem of short-term oversupply.
Therefore, I hope that in the light of what I have said, those who speak for the industry will recognise their responsibility to help maintain the confidence of producers in the future. I make no apology for repeating this plea. It is in the interests of the industry and of the nation that they should do so.
I have tried today in this short debate to set out what the Government have done in the few short months since we came to office and to show what we intend to do to assure the future prosperity of the agricultural industry and the future supply of food. I have referred to subsidies totalling £77 million during my term of office. We have tough problems which the Conservative Government left it to us to solve. I am not ashamed of what we have done. I am proud of what I have done so far. I am proud of what I have done in terms of renegotiation within the Community to improve that structure as well. I give a pledge that we shall go on doing what needs to be done in the interests of the nation. That is why I am glad to accept the motion which is before the House today.

Mr. Pym: I should like to clarify one matter on the subject of beef. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman is to negotiate will be backdated until today—or at least I think that is the implication of what he said. When he talks of accepting the motion, does he make that proposal on the basis of the assurance he gave the House on beef? That assurance will be welcomed, although no details have been given. Since there was no reference to his doing anything in this respect in terms of milk, pigs and poultry, is he accepting a motion which talks of safeguarding
the future supplies of home-grown feed for the consumer.

Mr. Peart: I am certain that the House and the industry will welcome what I said. I have been pressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House in various parties, particularly by friends from


Northern Ireland, such as the right hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West), who was a former Minister of Agriculture, with whom I have worked in the past. I have done what they want, and I believe that I have done what many of my friends in the Liberal Party want—indeed, let me say that I believe I have done what many Conservatives want. I cannot give an exact pledge today, but I shall be discussing this matter immediately. Progress depends on the industry. A lot of money will be needed. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire knows all about the difficulties, but I think that what we are doing should meet with his approval.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture made a remarkable statement at the end of his speech when he said that he accepted the motion, for he gave no hope to producers, other than producers of beef.
I wish to begin by repudiating what the right hon. Gentleman said about the record of the Conservative Government. The fact is that in the past few months the position of agriculture has changed drastically from a position of expanding production, high investment and growing confidence to a situation in which we have swiftly moved to reducing production and falling investment and no confidence.
I agree with the Minister that these problems did not begin immediately when the new Labour Government came into office. Many of our problems today stem from the vast increase in world cereal prices. It should not lie in the right hon. Gentleman's mouth to claim that the Conservative Government left him with insurmountable difficulties. They did not, and their record in office was better than that of any post-war Government. Between 1970 and 1973 farm income doubled, output was expanding swiftly and investment in that period increased two and a half times. At present, on the other hand, we have a crisis both of cash and confidence. Today we have the problem of glut and low return with high costs. I should like to emphasise some of the difficulties facing producers in respect of some commodities. The Minister rightly

said that beef was the area where current difficulties were greatest. He has said that sort of thing before, and he has already voiced his desire to see an expansion in production. However, I doubt whether what he said today will have the effect of halting the reduction in production which will undoubtedly take place as a result of calf slaughterings.
On 8th May, the right hon. Gentleman said at the Farmers' Club:
We want all the beef we can get from our farms in the future, and I accept that we must be prepared to pay reasonable prices for it
In that context, the right hon. Gentleman may care to remember the comment contained in the report on beef prices published on 10th January 1973, which said that the information which its writers
… were given indicates that prices of the order of £20 per live cwt represent to the fattener what would normally be regarded as a commercial return on investment.
Since then, costs have increased enormously.
I wonder how the right hon. Gentleman reconciles his statement to the Farmers' Club and what he has said on previous occasions with what he said in this House on 8th May. On that occasion he said:
We shall be watching developments very closely to see what, if any, temporary measures may become necessary".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May 1974: Vol. 873, c. 420.]
to prevent market prices for beef falling to unrealistic levels. In the light of the report on beef prices, even what the right hon. Gentleman said today means that market prices will still remain at unrealistic levels.
It is relevant to point out that on 9th May, in Devizes market in my constituency, the average beef price was £17·90 per cwt. On 19th June, the right hon. Gentleman again gave an undertaking that he would take action if it seemed to be necessary. The day after that, on 20th June, the average price in Devizes had fallen by £3 per cwt to £14·89.
It is not surprising that, until today, comparisons of the words of the right hon. Gentleman with his lack of action have created a considerable loss of confidence. The consequence is that the position has


been made even worse by many unfinished animals being brought forward on to the market in addition to the fact that calf slaughterings are up, as are slaughterings of cows and bulls.
The position of beef producers will be improved by what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I trust that he will not sit back complacently now and assume that he has solved the problem. I do not believe that what he has done will be adequate to cope for the future.

Mr. Tom King: Is it not clear that the right hon. Gentleman, who is a great respecter of this House, having accepted the motion, will be bound by the message that it contains? Is not it clear, therefore, that his statement today, which obviously does not satisfy the terms of the motion, is merely an interim measure, and that as, at the end of the debate, it will be passed by the will of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman will have to return as a matter of urgency to fulfil his pledge?

Mr. Peart: Mr. Peart
rose—

Mr. Morrison: Before the right hon. Gentleman interrupts me again, perhaps I might say that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). We look forward to a series of statements from the right hon. Gentleman to show that he is living up to the terms of the motion. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he will be making statements shortly?

Mr. Peart: I have made several statements already, and I shall be keeping the House informed constantly, especially about our negotiations in the Community, which have a bearing on these matters. As for the motion itself, I have taken immediate action in relation to what we do now about support. I have taken action on fertiliser. What more immediately do the Opposition want? I shall make reports whenever necessary. I am never afraid to meet the House, because I believe that this is the right place in which to discuss these matters.

Mr. Morrison: Having listened to that, I am not convinced that the right hon. Gentleman has understood the motion. It calls upon the Government

… to take immediate steps … to safeguard the future supplies of home-grown food for the consumer.
If the action which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed today does not have the effect of safeguarding future supplies of home-grown food for the consumer, he will have to come to the House with further proposals. I trust that he will think about that and take some action.
I turn away from beef to poultry and eggs. The producers of both are losing about £1 million a week, and clearly that cannot go on for much longer. The average broiler price is now about 16p per lb., compared with a production cost of about 21p. Turkeys are selling at about 20 per lb., compared with a production cost of about 26p. To get into perspective the cut in feed prices announced yesterday, it is worth noting that in broiler production a cut of £10 per ton in feed prices creates a reduction of 1p per lb. in the cost of production. As a result of current losses, chick placings have fallen very sharply in early June, at a time of the year when they are normally increasing. Therefore, a future shortage is possible. This will not only create difficulties for the consumer. It will mean a reduction in the poultry industry which undoubtedly will create some unemployment.
It is difficult to suggest what the right hon. Gentleman should do about it, but I have no doubt that the position of the poultry meat section is worsened by the lack of firmness throughout the meat market as a whole. Therefore, I hope that, as a by-product of what the hon. Gentleman proposes for beef, there will be some firming-up in poultry meat prices as well.
As for eggs, I have two questions to ask the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The first of them concerns how the negotiations on arsenical additives are going. The second relates to the number of imports of eggs from France. Although imports are relatively low, it is believed that they are having an adverse effect upon egg prices. Bearing in mind that the French ban imports from this country because of the use of arsenicals, will the Government introduce a ban on the import of French eggs until this problem about arsenicals is resolved?
The Minister referred to milk production, and he recognised that, although the situation is not too bad at the moment, it could be affected adversely in the autumn as a result of high feed prices. However, the main worry in the milk sector is for the consumer—

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The weather has not helped.

Mr. Morrison: I agree, although it has been raining a lot today.

Mr. Ross: We will take immediate action.

Mr. Morrison: But there is a good deal of worry for the consumer over milk production. I hope that the Minister has been receiving reports of the evidence given to the Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee which is at present looking into milk production. That could help him in his judgment about what should happen. There is a considerable world shortage of milk and our ability to import milk products will be limited, so it is important that the right hon. Gentleman should take action on this count very soon.
The problems of agriculture lead me to conclude that, in spite of what the Minister said, production of many commodities will decline unless further action is taken. He has a mammoth task to protect the food supply for the consumer. There remain some doubts in our minds whether he is up to that task, but I hope that, instead of laughing at the motion or accepting it lightly, he will take it seriously and come back to the House with announcements of further measures in the interests of both the consumer and the farmer.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members
rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is less than an hour and forty minutes left for this debate, including the winding-up speeches? I appeal to hon. Members to be as brief as possible.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: As another Welshman, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to follow your strictures to the letter.
Agriculture has been going through a difficult period. It has faced the consequences of inflation, increased production costs, changes in the support arrangements, and lower market returns over the past nine to 12 months. This has all added up, until today, to a massive loss of confidence. My right hon. Friend today has gone part of the way to meet some of the short-term points that I and many other hon. Members have been pressing on him.
How well my right hon. Friend has muted the noise of Conservative Members. The motion is in the name of a party which in Government month after month, refused to do anything until the election period came. The figures of falling milk production, decline in the breeding herd and the dramatic increase in slaughtering show that the situation was getting worse months before Labour came to power. I was an ardent critic of the inactivity of the previous Government, and my right hon. Friend will confirm that I have been complaining about his lack of action over the last three months. So at least I have been consistent. I am not sure how consistent the Opposition have been in their response to the concern and anxiety of the farming community.
The effect on the livestock sector is especially significant to Wales, which produces 36 per cent. by value of the milk production of the United Kingdom. 42 per cent. by value of total livestock products and 50 per cent. by value of total livestock production of the United Kingdom. If the livestock sector gets further into the troubled waters of past months, because of the preponderance of the Principality's agricultural output which lies in the livestock sector, Wales will suffer to a greater extent than other parts of the United Kingdom.
This point is further stressed when one realises that beef and milk production represent 62 per cent. of all Welsh agriculture. Furthermore, agriculture is relatively more important in Wales than in the United Kingdom as a whole. The latest estimates are that agriculture accounts for 12 per cent. of the Welsh gross domestic product—double the figure for the United Kingdom.
Agriculture is a major employer in rural Wales. More than 54,000 people derive at least part of their livelihood


from the industry. In my constituency, 36 per cent. of those employed work in agriculture or connected services. In the old county of Radnorshire, 55 per cent. of those employed worked in agriculture, and in parts of Breconshire the figure was as high as 60 per cent. So what happens to the livestock sector and to agriculture generally is cruicially import- ant to Wales.
I regret the action of my county NFU in writing to Opposition Members only in the last few days. I know that the officers will concede that I am very concerned about agriculture in my constituency. My door is open to union officials and to farmers at any time, as it has been for the last four years. I want to stress to the farming community and its two unions in Wales that no one has a monopoly of interest and concern for this industry. We on this side have done as much for agriculture, certainly since the war, as the Conservative Party.
The danger signals for the agriculture industry in Wales are already there. Over the last half year milk production was down 4·2 per cent. on the figure for December to May 1973. In the United Kingdom as a whole there has been a decline of only 3·6 per cent., so it is relatively greater in Wales. The decline from December to February this year was greater than the decline from March to May. I could give the figures, but I am sure that hon. Members will accept what I say.
Slaughtering is a major point of concern. The number of slaughterings of steers and heifers over the first 18 weeks of this year increased by 15 per cent. over the same period in 1973. The slaughterings of cows and bulls—the future breeding herd—increased by 28 per cent. For calves, the source not only of the breeding herd but of the beef supply, the figure is over 90 per cent. The breeding herd is declining. The quarterly Sample Livestock Enquiry for England and Wales showed in March 1974 the first significant decline in the 1970s. This is the period when the previous Government were in power, and the decline was substantial. The figure reached a peak in September 1973 of 599,000, and had fallen by the March quarter of 1974 to 580,000
Costs have soared massively, causing much concern. It has been estimated

that since the annual price review, which was a considerable under-recoupment review, costs have again increased. The estimated increase in costs in Wales since the annual review has reached almost £3 million. Over the whole of the United Kingdom the net increase in costs since the review is about £50 million. These include the price of fertilisers, which are up by 15 per cent.; machinery and repairs are up by 25 per cent.; and rents, labour—including the threshold wage agreement—marketing and transport costs are up by 10 per cent.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a very good reason for calling upon his right hon. Friend for an autumn review for the milk producers?

Mr. Jones: I shall come to milk shortly. I will accept advice from many quarters, but I am not sure that I should accept advice on agriculture from the Opposition.
The action of my right hon. Friend today will bring back a measure of confidence to the beef producer. I hate to be churlish. The Opposition should also refrain from being churlish. The inquiry carried out a year ago mentioned a figure of £20 per live hundredweight as the economic point for farmers to produce beef. Probably £18·25 per cwt. is on the lower end of the scale, but certainly it is to be welcomed as a first step, as the basis of a floor to the market. The guide price is at £19·25. Clearly, no one in the House should condemn my right hon. Friend for his action today on the question of certification of fat cattle. I am sure that the Opposition and the two farming unions in Wales will accept that decision.
The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) asked about milk. I have the largest milk-producing constituency in Britain. Over 66 million gallons are produced in Carmarthenshire annually. That brings in about £8 million to the local economy of that county. I prophesy that there will possibly be difficulties in the autumn, as there were in the autumn and winter of last year. We were pressing the then Government to take action at that time, but they refrained front doing so. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider cushioning any further increases in the cost of


feedingstuffs over the coming months, especially in the autumn and the winter. I hope that he will give that assurance to the milk farmer. The figures are there for all to see. The profit margin has disappeared. The gross margin on milk in 1971–72 was 5p per gallon. By March 1974, one month after the Opposition had left office, it had disappeared and there was a loss of 0·9p per gallon. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the situation of the milk industry over the coming months.
Although the pig sector of the industry is facing major problems, in view of the shortness of time in the debate I cannot afford to pursue the argument, but this matter needs to be examined again by my right hon. Friend.
I welcome the lime subsidy, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the situation in regard to fertilisers because it is worth a re-examination.
In regard to eggs, Eastwoods in my constituency has recently announced that it is having to cancel its planned expansion because of the problems in the egg industry. Producers are making an average loss of about 6p per dozen. The poultry meat industry is losing about £750,000 a week. This has had an effect upon expansion plans. Eastwoods, which employs about 1,000 people in Carmarthenshire, if not more, has decided that because of difficulties in the egg producing sector it will have to curtail plans. A representative of Eastwoods, talking about the impact on the local economy, said:
We would undoubtedly have used local labour to construct the factory and taken on additional labour to run and supervise it.
The intention was to build a further plant in Carmarthenshire.
I am glad about the limited action that has been taken by my right hon. Friend. I am always concerned about the future of the agricultural industry in Britain, but especially its future in Wales and Carmarthenshire. However, I want to warn my right hon. Friend gently that we must keep a very careful eye on the situation from now on because there is continuous pressure on costs. We must examine the situation month by month and, if need be, give further support to this important and great industry.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: In the interests of brevity I shall not follow up the remarks of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Jones), though he must have the consolation that although I do not do that, the National Farmers' Union branch in Carmarthenshire will do it.
The position of the industry in my constituency causes me the greatest concern. A very short time ago the wives of farmers in my constituency who are members of one of the smaller branches of the NFU organised a meeting at a small village hall. It was packed by 150 farmers and their wives. In my experience as the Member for the constituency, I have never known such feeling as there was at that meeting. It was not only a feeling of anger. It was also very much a feeling of fear for the future. Anger and fear together are very bad companions.
Therefore, I judge what the Minister has said today not on the impact that it has had in the House of Commons but on the impact that it would have had if he had said it to that meeting. The farmers who attended the meeting were small farmers. In my part of the world they are mostly small farmers, with farms worked by families and very often by the wives.
To illustrate the state that they are in—and why I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has met the situation today—I shall tell the House what one of the women at that meeting said to me. She said:
My husband works for over 60 hours a week. He is a good farmer. He is not inefficient. He has expanded his activities. But now, when I go to him with a bill telling him that I want to pay it, he says to me, 'No, I cannot pay it. The bank has clamped down'.
That is not just one case. There are many approaching this kind of despair. Some figures which have been sent to me illustrate this very well. They are quite recent figures for two smallish pig farmers. For one of them for the period from 1st April to 31st May 1974, the net loss was £768. On the other farm, from 1st March to 15th May 1974 the net loss was £1,014. If they had listened to the Minister's statement today, they would have had no comfort. They would have been reassured by him that there was a long-term future for the industry but that there was little or no


short-term help—in fact, none—for them. They will be bitterly disappointed.
There was nothing in the right lion Gentleman's speech directly for the milk farmer. There are many of them in my constituency. There is peripheral help on the cattle side with the sale of cattle. But one thing which both major parties should take into account is how quickly this situation developed. The swing from prosperity to near desperation has been awfully quick by any standards. I do not believe that the machinery of Government as it is at present, is jigged to be fast enough to cope with this matter.
One of the best things we can do to help the farming industry is to speed up the reaction of the Government to the situation as it develops. Therefore, it is essential, if we are to have nothing for milk producers now, at least to have an autumn review of the milk situation.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the motion. It means that he has to keep a constant eye on agriculture and to come back to the House frequently. Of that, I have not the slightest doubt. I do not envy him his job. He has a very difficult job, and it would be foolish to underestimate it. But I do not think that enough has been done to help those who are in trouble.
I rely very much on the right hon. Gentleman to keep the promise he has made today to keep everything under review and to act quickly at the first possible moment, because I do not believe that he has yet done enough. If he does not do it, we shall continue to prod him. I want to emphasise that speed of reaction is what is necessary to get the farming industry back on the proper footing. Just to talk in long terms without action will bring no comfort to the farmers, and the Minister must back up what he has said today with action.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: When an industry is in such desperate straits as the livestock section of the agriculture industry is today, anything that can be done to help is very welcome. On that basis, I welcome what the Minister of Agriculture has said. He knows from the previous debate and from the private meetings we have had—he is always ready to meet hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies,

who know his concern for agriculture—that in our opinion what he has done today is too little and too late. There is a great deal of artificiality about the debate. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the crisis did not spring up overnight.
As far back as last September I warned the Conservative Government about the excessive slaughtering of in-calf cows and in-pig sows. I was accused of being a scaremonger. By last Mardi the situation had reached crisis proportions. On 30th April, when I asked a supplementary question of the Prime Minister about the state of the agricultural industry, he replied:
The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in saying that it is a very serious situation, which goes back further than the time of change of Government. I will not put it any higher than that. My right hon. Friend's concern with these problems has been made clear in debate and at Question Time, and they take a serious attitude to the situation. They are doing everything in their power to help."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April 1974; Vol. 872, c. 936.]
Here we are nearly at the end of June before anything concrete has been announced.
There is a bizarre situation, with the Government accepting virtually what is an innocuous Motion by the Conservative Opposition. We had a similar debate a month ago and since then the crisis in agriculture has deepened. Hundreds of farmers have been or are being driven out of business. What the right hon. Gentleman announced today will help—I make no qualification about that—but let us look at the true position.
At the end of the last debate on agriculture, the whole of the parliamentary Liberal Party, every Member from the Scottish National Party, both Members from Plaid Cymru, and all but one hon. Member for Northern Ireland voted against the Government. Yet the Government won by a considerable majority. Why? Because the Conservative Opposition took care to ensure that there were enough abstentions to enable the Government not to be defeated. It was a chocolate soldier war, with everyone making sure on the Tory side that the Labour Government would carry the vote.
But the position today is different. The Government were afraid of being defeated on this motion, however innocuous it is,


so they are accepting it and the whole debate takes place in a different kind of atmosphere. I have told the right hon. Gentleman privately in an official meeting, and I say again, that what is happening in agriculture will not be put right by what he has decided today.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the lime subsidy. The Conservative Government removed the lime subsidy without any negotiation with the Common Market. Mr. Lardinois told me that there had been no preceding negotiations before it was withdrawn. The present Conservative Opposition have much to answer for. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not putting back the fertiliser subsidy as well. A great deal needs to be done to restore confidence to the industry.
I quoted from the Prime Minister's statement and referred to the previous debate in order to illustrate the time loss. Only now is the Minister of Agriculture sending officials to Brussels to negotiate an agreement with the EEC to enable him to help our beef producers. If he had decided to do that a month ago, the help could have been given today. But he would not. He would not accept our judgment of the agricultural situation, or he was overridden by his comrades in the Cabinet.

Mr. Peart: The hon. and learned Gentleman is usually reasonable but I cannot understand his view about me or my officials going to the EEC. I made my views known there and came back with a package. I have started to renegotiate and I believe that what I have suggested is right. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Liberal Party is a bigger supporter of the EEC than I am in the sense of wanting to remain in. Although I know that he himself is not a supporter of membership, the Liberal Party was quite prepared to go in without safeguards.

Mr. Hooson: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the Leader of the Liberal Party—

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is not here. Where is he?

Mr. Hooson: My right hon. Friend is here far more often than is the Leader of the Labour Party. My right hon. Friend made it clear that although the Liberal Party was overwhelmingly in support of the Common Market—save myself—it would be prepared to break regulations if necessary to protect British farming. But the problem faced by both Government and Opposition is that the Common Market has not yet agreed to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion today. I know from Mr. Lardinois that it will be difficult to get agreement. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, too.
The crunch will come for this House when the officials come back. If they have not been able to get agreement, what happens then? I have no doubt of what should happen. If agreement is not reached, this country must take unilateral action to defend its own farmers. I think that all farming Members on both sides of the House would agree with that. It is, of course, why the Opposition put down such an innocuous motion. It does not spell out any single step which should be taken but is couched in the vaguest possible general terms. That is why the right hon. Gentleman has accepted it and has made a farce of the debate.
I am certain that what has been done today will start to restore confidence to the industry. But let no one think that the crisis is over. It is not. There is over-production of beef, which has been encouraged by both Labour and Conservative Governments and by all parties. There has been a series of misjudgments of the situation. We are still in the bizarre position of paying farmers £150 a cow to turn from milk to beef production at a time of beef glut, while, under Community regulations, the whole agriculture industry is in a chaotic state. It will need the dedication and cooperation of all parties in the House if we are to get out of the crisis.
We can all agree generally with the long-term package and the amendments proposed to Brussels by the right hon. Gentleman, but they will not start operating at the earliest until next April. It is in the meantime that the problem is acute. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he replies, to give his


mind to the enormous liquidity problem facing farmers, and especially small farmers. They are desperate. Some of them have no income at present. They are selling their cattle for peanuts because they have no money. The bank managers have closed in on them. That is the situation.
The glib and sanguine nature of the approach of this House to the enormous crisis in agriculture makes one despair. I ask the Minister to consider with his Cabinet colleagues whether it is possible to help the liquidity situation by advance payments of the hill-cow subsidy, the beef subsidy, the sheep subsidy and the calf subsidy so that the farmers may get the money into their hands at an earlier stage. That would be some contribution to what is the real and not the artificial crisis in agriculture.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Torney: I have listened carefully to the debate, and my right hon. Friend's speech indicated clearly that there is considerable understanding of and interest in the farmers' problems within the Government. That explodes the myth that only the Tory Party is the friend of the farmer.
I am pleased to note the concession that my right hon. Friend has been able to make for beef. I am aware of the serious situation in farming. If I had not been aware of the situation until a month or two ago, the farmers themselves would have made it clear to me and to the back-bench group which I chair. We take that under our belt and we accept what they say. I agree with much of what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said. It is right that there is a crisis. However, what my right hon. Friend has said today will make a good contribution towards solving the problem. I am sure that we all wish the situation to be improved quickly.
I wish that my right hon. Friend could have looked deeper into the pig and milk situation. It has been said from the Conservative benches that the Minister is complacent. I can assure Conservative hon. Members that that is not in the nature of my right hon. Friend. I know him well. Even if he were complacent,

there is a group on this side which would ensure that that complacency was very short lived.
The Government are aware of the situation and they are for ever pointing out the urgency for action. I fear, along with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, that the EEC may make problems when my right hon. Friend tries to do what he said he will do this afternoon. I should like to see the Government have the courage to act unilaterally if the Common Market tries to interfere with the lifeblood of British farming. I want to see progress made for British farmers and not added protection for French farmers. They are doing very nicely, thank you. I want to see us looking after our own farmers.
I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). It seemed that he felt that we had been in office for four years and not four months. His memory must have been terribly short. It is true that he was not the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the previous administration, but I am sure that at some stage he must have liaised with his right hon. Friend who had that responsibility. All the farmers that I have met—and I met some as recently as this morning in the House—have pointed out to me that the main cause of the problem is the cost of feed. Farmers tell me that they appreciate that that problem has not sprung up since March of this year. The price of feed was going up phenomenally during the middle of last year. Which party was in power during the middle of last year? It was the Conservative Party for whom the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire speaks. Therefore, there is a great deal of responsibility that must rest upon the shoulders of the Tory Party for the situation in which the farming community now finds itself.
The previous Government should have acted when they saw a suicide situation being created by the high cost of feed. Another point that must be emphasised is the headlong rush into the Common Market of the previous administration. The common agricultural policy—I would impress this matter upon my right hon. Friend if he were here, but I hope that my remarks will be conveyed to him—is useless not only to the British farmer


but to the British consumer. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend speaking about the wrongness of intervention. I would call it the idiocy of intervention. I can see no future for the housewife or for the farmer in a policy that merely takes away surplus food and stores it in the storehouses of Europe only to go rotten or perhaps to be sold to countries outside the Market at a giveaway price. The balance is used to protect the French farmer and the deficit must be made up by the taxpayers of the EEC, including the British taxpayer.

Mr. Hamish Watt: Mr. Hamish Watt (Banff)
rose

Mr. Torney: No, I shall not give way, I have very little time.
We now see that good Scotch beef is being exported to France and Germany—and I would not protest about that if we had a surplus—whilst French and German beef is being imported into Scotland and to other parts of the British Isles. The wicked stuff is supposed to be for manufacturing purposes, but judging by the stuff that is appearing on my table of late, I wonder whether some of the inferior Common Market beef is being sold to the British housewife for the Sunday joint.
I was impressed by the words of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery on the overall situation. Of course, it has been said by Conservative hon. Members that something must be done for the future of farming as a whole and that perhaps Governments are not able to catch up quickly enough with a quickly changing situation.
I have some knowledge of the milk industry. Our arrangements for the distribution of milk are the finest in Europe and probably in the world. We have a planned system. No longer does the farmer wonder whether he will sell his milk in a time of surplus. He knows that it will be taken off his hands, and he knows what will be the price. That is thanks to the Milk Marketing Board. God forbid that the Common Market should interfere with the Milk Marketing Board. No country in the Common Market has anything like it. I understand from the treaty that the EEC could interfere with the board, but I fervently hope that we shall not allow that to happen.
The farming industry as a whole needs some long-term planning. Gone is the time when we can afford to step up production when prices are high only to find that we have too much when prices fall. We must deal with the short-term problems quickly, perhaps more urgently than the Minister has been able to do this afternoon. I hope that the Government will set in motion machinery to enable long-term plans to be made for the farming industry as a whole, so that we get rid of the boom-and-slump cycle which is bad for the farmer and, in the long run, bad for the British housewife.

6.2 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be glad that the pressures that the agricultural industry has brought on hon. Members have at least borne some fruit. We should use the debate to consider the next step forward, which is how in future to avoid the present muddle and how to get out of the present muddle. We should consider whether we are still trying to get our agriculture on the cheap.
Before we went into the Common Market, the cost of our agricultural support system was over £5·50 per head of the population. The Common Market was spending over £14 per head of the population on agricultural support and at the same time paying 25 per cent. more for feeding stuffs. Since that time, we have withdrawn a certain amount of the support—that was done by the Conservative Government—and world prices have removed the need to support cereal prices. As a result, the contribution made by our taxpayers has fallen dramatically. In the United States support for agriculture is between £19 and £20 per head of the population.
We should be misleading the industry if we thought that what had been announced today would solve all the difficulties. We need to find out why the beef industry got itself into trouble. A year or 18 months ago farmers were being assured by people in agriculture and hon. Members that there was an unlimited market for beef and that they had no need to worry. They were told, "Go on producing; you can sell all you produce".
In Europe today there is a shortfall of 800,000 tons production, of which about 600,000 tons is taken up in Italy.


We know what has happened to the Italian economy. When a high proportion of a shortfall is taken up in one country, that is a danger signal. We need to assess the beef requirements of the United Kingdom market and to know what are the export possibilities so that we can get our books into balance.
If the Minister finds it necessary to give support to pig producers and beef producers, it is equally necessary to give support to poultry producers. The firm of Eastwood has been mentioned as a big poultry producer. The firm operates in my constituency and I recently received a letter from the company which stated that it employed 5,000 people, approximately 1,000 of whom were employed in Fife. One cannot turn out the chickens into the fields in the summer as one can turn out cattle and hope thereby to save money. The Minister must acknowledge that, if there is a need to support beef and pig producers there must be the same need to support poultry producers.
No doubt the Secretary of State for Scotland will have seen the headlines in The Scotsman today and the article in which the chairman of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, Mr. William Young, is reported as having said:
Dairy farmers must receive more for their milk by 1st October at the latest if the present recession in the dairy industry is not to become a disaster.
Last year we stuck to the rules, saying that we had to await the price review before making an adjustment in the milk price. Everyone knew that we were living in a fool's paradise. The basic cost of animal feedingstuffs in this country is set by the results of the northern hemisphere harvest which comes in September and October. By that time, the cost is known, and to postpone the adjustment for several months leads to hardship. Many farmers thought it unfair that, whereas bakers could come to the Government and say that the price of wheat had gone up and they must therefore charge more for their bread or make a loss, the livestock breeder was unable to do so and had to wait until a certain date.
We must get greater flexibility or make the adjustment at another time. If 1st September is a better time, the adjustment should be made then. That is the time when farmers in the northern hemis

phere get an idea of what return they will get next year. Unless we do that, people will suffer from uncertainty, production will fall away and in the long run the housewife will suffer.
With the recent increase in wages and with the threshold agreements now operating, the cost of harvesting this year's crop of potatoes is entirely unrelated to the guaranteed price agreed at the last price review. This is a matter of particular interest to Scotland, and it should be examined again. If we do not do that, no potato crop will be grown in the future, and that would be a great tragedy, particularly for Scotland.
There are many other matters on which I should like to comment, but time is short. Let us hope that as a result of the debate we shall take the first step of getting out of our present muddle.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I shall devote most of my speech to following along the lines followed by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). However, I commence by congratulating, in his absence, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the steps he announced. These go a long way towards restoring confidence in the hardest-pressed sector. Although one wishes that the steps had been more precise, one understands why they are not.
Agriculture is facing a series of imbalances, both cyclical and sectional, of a severity that has not been known for the past 20 or 30 years. If one takes, for example, the problem of different costs between summer milk production on grass and winter milk production on concentrates, unless the ratio of return given to the farmer for winter milk production is significantly increased this coming winter, we shall run into the possibility of a liquid milk shortage in the darkest months.
This phenomenon—we knew about it in the mid-1950s—had faded into less significance during the last 15 or 20 years. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture already have plans to ensure that dairy farmers will get adequate returns this winter to enable them to produce a sufficiency of milk to meet the housewife's requirements. That is only one of many examples.
We are looking for a solution within a framework of a desire to achieve two aims: an adequate return to farmers and farm workers for their capital and labour at prices that the housewife can afford to pay, and the fullest contribution that agriculture as a whole can make to the international and internal economics of this country.
We have tried the experiment of a market economy for agriculture during the last four years. The events of the last six months, with a succession of recurrent crises, have indicated the inadequacy, in the complex international situation, of allowing market forces to regulate agricultural production.
Four years ago last weekend, the then new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was happily saying, "We want to get the Ministry of Agriculture out of the farmers' hair and allow the farmers to get the return from the market." Yet this afternoon the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was, in effect, asking for the return of deficiency payments. His request might have been dressed up in some other way, but in reality that is what we were being asked to do.
Today there is unanimity between the two sides of the House. Both say, "Let us look at the situation again. Let us see that, in supporting agriculture, we are giving that long-term guarantee of earning capacity to the farmer that alone is his security for expanding production."
I turn now to one area that will benefit from the most welcome news about the continuation of the lime subsidy, the discontinuance of which was a disaster and a most foolish decision on the part of the previous Government, namely, hill farming, not only in the north of England, but in Wales and elsewhere. Hill farmers in national park areas have planning restrictions imposed upon their economic activities because of their presence in national parks. It seems quite inequitable that society at large should impose additional costs on them and provide no commensurate additional remuneration.
For example, a hill farmer may be required to build a cow byre in stone because it is the national parks policy that the town dweller should have a pretty view from his motor car. It is inequit

able to ask the farmer to bear the differential price of having to build with more expensive materials. There is an urgent need for a major review of the additional costs that the national park farmer has to bear.
We need to look carefully at the level of farmers' incomes. I notice that M. Cointat introduced a law about 18 months ago to try to do something similar in France. Let us not pretend that the common agricultural policy has solved the problem of income differential between the arable and the hill farmer. It has made the situation worse on the Continent and, equally, it has in no way solved the problem in this country. That income differential is, if anything, getting wider. The growth of high incomes from barley and other cereal production has relatively depressed the hill farmer's income.
I should like the Government as a matter of urgency to consider what other methods are needed and what other procedures can be applied to ensure that the depopulation of hill and upland areas is reversed, that the concept that hill areas are merely an attractive scenic backcloth for occasional visitors is reversed, and that the hills are seen as the essential livestock reservoir areas from which hill and lowland farming must in the end get its genetic and other stocks. It is no use just putting on a higher fatstock price and hoping that ultimately it will filter back to the hill farmer. We must take direct action to increase his income.
I hope that before we have a further debate on agriculture my right hon. Friend will be able to announce additional assistance for the hard-pressed hill farmers.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: We need to adopt an agricultural policy which fulfils a number of considerations.
What is the national need? It is, first, to feed our population; secondly, to save imports; and, thirdly, to safeguard employment.
On the first need, to feed our population, let us leave out consideration of the price to the consumer, because if we do, the day will come when the supply simply will not be there. We must start at the production end.
We have seen the alleged butter and cheese mountains built up in the news media as if they were an eternal reality, but they have disappeared within weeks, not months. We are told that there is a beef mountain. How long will that last, with the demands being made by Japan, North America and South America, with their increasing populations and increasing income per head which gives them the purchasing power to eat properly for the first time in their lives?
We must concentrate on supply. We cannot delay destroying the illusion about prices. The public must realise that food is not cheap to produce. Food subsidies wrongly applied merely perpetuate the myth that food is cheap to produce when in fact it is very expensive.
This is a matter of crucial importance. The subsidies on milk will run into an escalation in budgetary costs that the Treasury will be unable to meet. When that happens the housewife will come up against an increase in the price that she has to pay that does not represent a sudden increase in the cost of production but a sudden contact with the reality which has always been there, and is continuing.
With an adverse balance of trade of more than £4,000 million a year, how can we ignore the saving on imports that Britain's largest industry can make? If we are to have a sane policy, we cannot ignore that. Whether we are in the Common Market or not, the same desperate balance of payments problem faces us, is with us, and will continue to confront us. The best available contribution that we can make is from the most efficient agricultural industry anywhere in the world—that which exists in Britain.
We shall not get adequate expansion from temporary stimuli. We shall get it only if the necessary resources are provided and if continuity of such resources can be accurately foreseeable. The days are past when farmers or their bankers react in the way they used to react to a temporary measure taken by the Government of the day to make some line of production marginally more attractive than previously. I have never known bank managers so worried about their customers in the agricultural industry as they are today, and units which are known to be excellently managed and are

on better than average land are now regarded as not being credit worthy.
Do not let us forget that employment throughout the nation which is connected with agriculture. About £700 million worth of products produced by other industries are bought by agriculture, including such items as farm machinery and fertiliser, and over 100,000 people are employed in the milk manufacturing industry. How many of them will be so employed next February? When the amount of liquid milk consumed is not much less than the total milk supplied, and when the tremendous capital investment in the milk manufacturing industry to deal with what was anticipated to be a consistent increase in milk production has not materialised, how safe is that employment?
What happens to our balance of payments when we have to import butter and cheese for which the capital equipment has been provided, for the manufacture of which skilled and semi-skilled personnel are employed, and for which we have the plant on our farms, but for which the milk output is not there? This is not a sort of nightmare of the future—it is the reality of what is happening before our eyes, and it needs action now.
Farmers need an income for them and their families to live on. This is sometimes overlooked. They have to service their capital. We should not look at the bogus figures of agricultural net returns which depend on a farmer having inherited his farm or having inherited the capital with which he works it. We need to take the costings of farmers who have had to borrow every penny which has gone into their farm and in the current financing of their farming operations. The interest which they have to pay gives the real figures in this respect. Then we should see whether there is any return left for them to live on, let alone their having a penny towards replacing borrowed working capital with accumulated working capital. The answer is "No, that is not happening". Tinkering with prices here or there for a short period because of another newspaper scare about the non-existence or existence of a temporary surplus will not meet the need. Costs have to be covered.
People have talked about the increase in cereal cost, but what about increases


in fuel costs, and the myriad of things used on a farm, such as sheet polythene, binder twine, nails, timber for fencing and galvanised wire? Cereal prices might possibly drop, but these cost will not. We must also consider the creditworthiness without which the farmer loses his working capital, which is borrowed.
Government after Government of all political persuasions have encouraged farmers to expand output. As they have not had sufficient current return to finance this expansion, it has been done with borrowed money; and interest rates have doubled since the money was borrowed. That must be serviced out of present returns, otherwise the overdraft has to be increased still further to pay the interest on the previous overdraft, and the banks are simply not prepared to allow that.
What steps do we need to take? The action announced by the Minister today would have been admirable if it had been at £19·50 per live cwt. for beef. It is no good the Minister of State waving his hands down. The figure of £19·50 is the minimum which will start to generate the sort of returns which will service borrowed money.
It is because we have not been accustomed to such realities and because we have hoped that they would go away that we now have to face them with a bang. We need another 3·5p per gallon on milk, because the collapse of the beef market has reduced dramatically one of the major sections of the milk producer's income from cow barreners, cull-cows and calves. That will not recover overnight, and so we need an extra infusion of money into the milk producing industry—not a promise of money to come, but a flow of cash now.
Last weekend I visited a pig farm in my constituency. A year ago it had 600 pigs. Last Sunday it had 30. I do not know how many it will have by today. The farmer has had to sell off at heavy losses each week so that he and his wife can buy food to live on, and buy fuel and pay the electricity bills and rates. He has got to have money but the bank will not advance it any more.
We should abolish the milk subsidy paid at the moment on retail price, because we must introduce the people of

Britain to the reality. We can no longer afford to postpone this painful introduction, and the money so saved should be transferred to a supplementary rate support grant, because that is where it is much more desperately needed.
If the Government will grasp the nettles which I have raised, they will have an agricultural policy of which they can be proud. I am not in the least interested in who has done what in the past, but I am interested that we should, nationally, get a policy we can live with and which meets the nation's needs. That will not happen unless producers' needs are also met.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members
rose—

Mr. Speaker: I wish to call two further hon. Members from the back benches, one from each side of the House, provided that they take about only three minutes each.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few remarks. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). I have never believed in a free play of market forces ruling our agriculture industry. The country needs stability, and that cannot be given by the sort of freedom about which Members of the Opposition have been preaching for the past few years. Enough is already left to chance in agriculture with the weather without introducing a greater element of chance.
I welcome the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister in a number of respects. The lime subsidy is most welcome in my area of mid-Wales. We have asked for it for some time. We felt that when farmers were having a lean time, expenditure on lime would suffer first. Any long-term cut in the lime subsidy would be fatal.
I hope that my right hon. Friend has not altogether ruled out a fertiliser subsidy. I hope also that he will keep the options open regarding pigs and that when the terminal date comes for the extra subsidy, he will reconsider it. I hope that in the meantime he will seriously think about doing something before that date, because people want to prepare for the long term. There is concern in the industry as to what will happen after September.
Beef production is of considerable concern in my area, and there have been difficult times recently. Farmers have been suffering agonies of anxiety. I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend has achieved a breakthrough. I do not wish to be churlish. I wholeheartedly welcome the news that my right hon. Friend is thinking of a target figure of around £18 for the breakthrough.

Mr. Peart: No. My hon. Friend is referring to the intervention price; the target price is much higher.

Mr. Roderick: I apologise. I was using the word "target" very loosely when I should have used the word "guarantee". I hope that this will lead to a breakthrough with our partners in Europe.
When the negotiations with the Community are over, what shall we do if the Community says no? Shall we proceed on our own? I hope that we shall, because the Community cannot dictate to us the kind of agricultural policy that suits us best. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be adamant in that respect.
A dairy farmer in my constituency wrote to me a few days ago saying:
I do not believe that anyone owes us a living; but by the same token, I do not think that an ungrateful public can expect me to work long hours in order to give them cheap food. I am already making structural plans so that I can reduce the herd size in order that I can run it myself if things don't improve in the near future. I shall be sorry to get rid of a good cowman who has been with me 17 years. Although I am a dairy farmer, the sale of calves is an important item in my income. Last year Mr. Ken Jones was paying me £40 per head for my Friesian bull calves. This year he doesn't want them owing to the loss he has suffered on last year's purchases. I am getting £6 to £7 for the same type of calf at the moment.
Help for the beef sector will help the dairy farmer and I hope, too, that it will help many other sectors of the industry.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution to the debate, not only because I represent an important likestock constituency in Cheshire, lying as it does between the two huge conurbations of Stoke-on-Trent and Greater Manchester, but because the importance of the British agriculture industry has never been more obvious than today, and

today it is on the brink of collapse. To quote the words of Mr. Ken Unwin, chairman of the Staffordshire NFU county livestock committee,
The situation is on a knife-edge at the moment and unless there is immediate action the consequences could be very bad.
While many housewives can confidently anticipate a gigantic beef bonanza, with butchers and the retail trade cutting prices to the metaphoric bone, livestock producers in Cheshire, Staffordshire and elsewhere are on the verge of ruin. While the housewife will benefit from the 8p or 9p per pound reduction in the price of stewing steak or rolled bricket and other cheaper cuts, farmers are now estimated to be losing £40 per animal. At my local market in Congleton a loss of £8 per hundredweight on well-fed bullocks was reported last week.
At a time when world prices of primary products have dealt a severe blow to the United Kingdom economy, the import-saving rôle of British agriculture cannot and must not be underestimated. Sir Henry Plumb has suggested that this could be worth as much as an extra £750 million a year by 1980, and yet for the last three months the Government have to a certain extent been playing politics with the nation's home-grown food supplies. I do not blame the Minister for this state of affairs as he is undoubtedly restricted by his right hon. Friends in what he would like to do.
My party when in government did not always prove sensitive enough or act soon enough to deal with the problems of the industry. The concept of Europe is of no value to Britain unless we promote our own interests as well. The miners, producing some of the nation's energy requirements, got their pound of flesh at our expense. The housewife can buy her pound or more of flesh very reasonably. So why should not the farmer get a fair return for the pound of flesh he is producing and which represents his livelihood?
In championing the cause of the livestock farmer I am also seeking to safeguard the interests of the housewife. A collapse in the farm livestock industry in the United Kingdom will hit this country hard. It will hit not only the farmer and his agricultural workers but every man, woman and child. The situation


is desperate. Creditors cannot be kept at bay indefinitely and we must not put ourselves in such a position that we rely more and more for our food upon other countries. We know what happened with oil when we were held to ransom in a blatant and appalling way. If we are not prepared to allow our farmers a realistic return for food which they grow in this country to the benefit of our trading position, for how long will we be able to afford to buy the vital raw materials that we do not possess and cannot produce but which we have to purchase from abroad if we are to remain in business?
We must wake up before it is too late. While I welcome the limited proposals that the Minister has announced, and I pay tribute to the way he is trying to stand up in Europe for British agriculture, I am sure that further Government action is required now to safeguard Britain's future.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: This has been a useful debate, not least for the assurances that have been drawn from the Minister. My right hon. Friends and I welcome those assurances. Our only regret is that it has taken so long to get them from the Minister. It has taken many months, throughout the time we were debating the Gracious Speech, at the time of the debate on 8th May, through Question Time on numerous occasions and with tremendous pressure being put on the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland to get assurances about the beef industry.
It is all very well for the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) to pour scorn on the terms of the motion, but as a result of it we have been given assurances which the hon. and learned Member welcomed. Thank goodness that at last the Government have reacted to the pressure which we and others have continually put upon them in recent weeks.
The right hon. Gentleman gave certain undertakings, some of which are of a general nature. I appreciate why the Minister could not be precise this afternoon. We accept that the undertakings were given in good faith, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will do all we can to support him in the

interests of the farmer and the consumer. If he does not pursue his objectives with determination and if he does not achieve them the Opposition will use every means in their power to keep him up to the mark.
Precisely what assurances were given by the right hon. Gentleman today? He gave an assurance on the lime subsidy, and we welcome that. He must appreciate that in the circumstances now prevailing that subsidy will be useful and helpful, but it amounts to about £5 million, which is a very small sum in view of the fact that the industry has faced cost increases of between £40 million to £50 million since the 1974 price review in February.
I come to the Minister's proposals concerning beef. I appreciate that his right hon. Friend cannot answer precisely tonight, but I should like to know when the Minister's proposals will come ink, effect. Let him be under no illusion. Unless the proposals come into effect as quickly as possible, they will do nothing to restore confidence in the industry. Since 28th February it has had to exist on words and promises. The right hon. Gentleman means to carry out what he has said this evening. Unless that is done very soon, all those words will be lost and no confidence will be restored. Delay will be dangerous to our future supplies of beef.
Once the right hon. Gentleman's proposals are put forward and agreed, will they be backdated to the date of the announcement made today? If they are not backdated, can he operate them within a matter of weeks and give a firm date in the near future when they will come into effect? He has left unanswered a great many other questions. We still know nothing precise with regard to the future of pig producers.
My hon. Friends have referred to milk production. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) referred to the remarks of the Chairman of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, who is a constituent of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who, I hope, is listening. We are now experiencing a serious situation as regards the milk industry. Already in the summer months in parts of South-West England supplies of cheese are under allocation to retailers. How much more serious is that position


likely to be during the winter? This will require firm action when the time comes.
My right hon. Friend has referred to eggs and poultry, about which questions have been left unanswered. I ask hon. Gentlemen not to blame us for what is happening to the beef market. It is not our fault. What undermines the confidence of the industry? The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the basic factors underlying the economics of the agriculture industry. He must realise two things. The dramatic fall in the price of beef over the last few weeks has occurred because of the actions of the right hon. Gentleman; it has happened since his Government came to power. He is involved in two ways. The first was when the Government came to power. Then there were the right hon. Gentleman's first negotiations in Brussels. He opted out of the intervention system and put nothing in its place. That was his most serious action to undermine confidence since his Government came to power. The responsibility for that rests with the right hon. Gentleman. According to the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman today, he is answering for his own mistakes and not for anything which happened before his Government came into office.
The Minister does not understand that confidence is crucial in the agriculture industry. Unless he does more to understand what motivates the industry and what makes the industry work, he will do us a disservice and any promises he makes will be worth very little.
The second thing for which the right hon. Gentleman must bear responsibility is the withdrawal from intervention, when he succeeded in opening the gates of this country to subsidised Community beef from across the Channel. That has been one of the biggest factors causing the weakness of the beef market in recent weeks. Let there be no illusions. What the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward tonight—we welcome it—is a rectification of his own mistakes and an attempt to put right what he has done recently.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to accept the motion, which is drafted in clear and categoric terms. It calls on the Government to safeguard the future supplies of homegrown food to the consumer. We on this

side provided that safeguard when we were in power.
As regards supplies of beef and veal, home production rose from 77 per cent. of total supplies in 1969–70 to a forecast of 86 per cent. in 1973–74. Production of mutton and lamb rose from 40 per cent. in 1969–70 to a forecast 52 per cent. in 1973–74. Production of bacon and ham the third most important livestock commodity, rose from 38 per cent. in 1969–70 to a forecast 45 per cent. in 1973–74. Our policies achieved an assurance of food supplies for the consumers of this country.
The right hon. Gentleman accepts our motion. We are glad. We will support him in his efforts to fulfil it.
Apart from the Minister's general assurance, he has given no promises of precise action. We await that. I assure him that we are not prepared to wait long. We shall be impatient, as indeed our producers will be impatient, unless he backs up his words by action. It is in the interests of consumers and producers that the motion should be implemented. We on this side give the right hon. Gentleman notice that if he fails to fulfil both the spirit and the letter of the motion he will fail not only the House of Commons but the producers. At the end of the day it will be the consumers who will condemn him for failing to ensure the food supplies of the nation.

6.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I had expected from the reports I have read that the House would be crowded and that we were to experience a continuous and vicious lashing attack upon the Government.
We expected that kind of debate, but after my right hon. Friend delivered his fine speech the debate was rather like Wimbledon after a thunderstorm—the courts were cleared, everyone disappeared.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) made the first Opposition backbench speech. I could see him mentally tearing up the speech he had prepared. He was in considerable difficulties. Although he asked important questions about eggs and poultry, which I shall answer later, it was not the speech he had intended to make. One of the difficulties of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith)


was that he did not have the good sense to tear up his speech.
For some time we have expressed concern about the agriculture industry. I heard the hon. Gentleman saying that the farmers had had to live since 28th February. That was the date of the election. We did not even have a Government at that time. That was when a certain right hon. Gentleman was trying to organise something so that despite his dismissal by the people of this country he could remain Prime Minister. It started then.
The increase in the calf subsidy to the agriculture industry was £35 million. The special pig subsidy amounted to £30 million and that for horticulture heating oil amounted to £7 million. Announcements were made today about a lime subsidy of £5 million. Those are fine words. We do not deny that we have been concerned. We share the concern expressed about the agriculture industry by most people.
I have a Press release from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. It reads:
We have left the Minister in no doubt about how serious the situation has become. Frankly, we are facing a crisis in which milk and livestock producers are going to have to cut back production to survive. It is as simple as that.
That was not said during the past two months. That was said on 28th September last year after they had seen the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman asked for immediate action. How long did the farmers have to wait for action? Not until February 1974, after an election, did they get any action. Yet the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to stand and say "We will judge you". Whom do the Opposition think they are? They are certainly not deceiving the farmers, because the farmers know what happened.
Then we had that wonderful speech at Norwich by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who told us how he was manoeuvring everything and that the Government had made up their minds in December what the farmers needed. But he said that it was a ticklish business; they had to negotiate in the Common Market. The Common Market was the Conservatives' pride and joy, the answer to all the problems of agriculture.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman had four points. He was most concerned

about milk. He spoke about his posturings in the negotiations about other things, about how difficult the matter was, how difficult he had been, how he had given way on this and that but how he had done nothing about matters other than milk. The other matters included beef and, I think, sugar.

Mr. Joseph Godber: Mr. Joseph Godber(Grantham) rose—

Mr. Ross: I will not give way. The right hon. Gentleman could have been present to speak earlier.

Mr. Godber: Mr. Godber
rose—

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman was not going to deal with beef until 11th March, when he went to the Community, but all the trouble started—

Mr. Godber: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will give way when he has made such a challenge. He knows very well that there was no need to do anything about beef, because we were still in the intervention system. It was the action of his right hon. Friend that was responsible. As to the other matters, February was the date for the price review. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that we should have abandoned the price review?

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that he advanced the price review because of the state of agriculture, but he did nothing about it. He got rid of the lime subsidy and ended the fertiliser subsidy. He did nothing about beef, because he could do nothing; he had already taken it out of the guarantee at the price review. He left us helpless. He had to go to Europe on the problem of beef and did not deal with it until he had dealt with milk. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well what has happened to the intervention policy when put to the test in Europe. Indeed, he has no need to go to Europe generally. Let him go to Southern Ireland and see whether the intervention policy there has succeeded in sustaining the market. It has not.
It is no answer to tell the British public today "Let us force up prices. Let us put this fresh commodity into cold storage and let it deteriorate". If the right hon. Gentleman had heard his hon. Friend


the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), he would have heard an entirely different approach. Not only we but the Community have to see how we got into the beef muddle. We shall get out of it only with considerable changes in things that people have hitherto thought sacred. The person who has started those changes is my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Nonsense.

Mr. Ross: It is not nonsense. Having accused us of not taking immediate action, when he thought that five months was fair enough for the Conservatives, let the hon. Gentleman be silent now.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Mr. Buchanan-Smith
rose—

Mr. Ross: I have only five minutes. The hon. Gentleman had his own time and I did not interrupt him.
It should be appreciated that the difficulties did not start on 28th February. They were there, and action had to be taken. We are not exactly free agents when it comes to taking immediate action. We have to go to Brussels and talk to our Community partners. That was one of the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties.
We have been asked for details. They cannot be given until they are worked out, but on the basis of what we know we are satisfied that the matter will be all right. We also have the assurance from my right hon. Friend that we shall take the action we think right for the British people and British agriculture.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)
rose—

Mr. Ross: Changes must be made in the common agricultural policy not only to suit Britain but to suit Europe.
Several hon. Members suggested that the figure mentioned for beef was not enough. That did not surprise me. I think that it was the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Jones) who made the suggestion. If we take the figure under the guarantee and add the cost increases since, we have roughly the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend. A Conservative Member shakes his head. He need not do that, because I worked the figure out and I got my officials to help me.
There are already indications that what was done last week and what has been announced even today are resulting in some firming-up. In fact there has been an improvement in today's prices. Let us not talk ourselves into further gloom. It was suggested that in order to have confidence there must be a floor figure. That figure has been given. We have received assurances about the lime subsidy.
Opposition Members should be ashamed. I remember the last debate and my statement at the end of my speech that if action was needed we should take it. We have already taken action. We have shown that the farmers of this country can once again rely on the Labour Party and this Government. We created the Act on which their postwar prosperity was built up, and we are still the same kind of people.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: How will the special subsidies announced to help with beef be administered? There is concern among auctioneers that they will be paid only on the deadweight. May we have an assurance that we shall return to the system as it was and that subsidies will be paid on the animals in the market when they are sold for slaughter?

Mr. Ross: Those details are being worked out. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that although there are certain difficulties most of them will be covered.

Question put and agreed to

Resolved,
That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps, especially in the livestock sector, to safeguard the future supplies of home grown food for the consumer.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it will be convenient if I indicate that I intend to select the amendments of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine).

Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

Mr. George Cunningham: I have been asked by British Rail to present the Bill to the House once again, as I did on Second Reading before it went to Private Bill Committee. As I went through its details on Second Reading on 8th April I do not intend to go over the ground again, especially as I understand that the Bill is objected to by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) in respect of only one of the powers sought in the Bill; and, of course, hon. Members will have received a detailed brief of the content of the Bill.
At the end of the debate on 8th April the Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading and, as a result of the withdrawal of the six petitions deposited against it, it was considered by an Unopposed Bills Committee on 22nd May. Amendments were made by the Committee at the request of British Rail, including the deletion of works Nos. 1 and 2 which were the proposed railway to Maplin Sands and the addition of some protective provisions agreed by the promoters with the interested parties.
One clause was disallowed by the Committee. That was the provision relating to exemption from the requirement to provide two firemen's switches on luminous signs at automatic half-barrier level crossings. Apart from those amendments the Bill is in substantially the same form as it was on Second Reading and I hope the House will understand why I am not going over those details tonight.
I should explain, however, the part of the Bill to which exception is taken on behalf of the residents of Canvey Island and of the neighbouring mainland. This will be found in Clause 6 and it consists of Work No. 3, which comprises a one-mile extension to connect a spur railway on Canvey Island, which is already authorised by the British Railways Act 1972, with an oil refinery proposed to be constructed by United Refineries Ltd. adjacent to another refinery already under construction by the Occidental Oil Company Ltd. This line is intended to be used to transport some of the refined products from the refineries to inland depots or other distribution centres.
British Rail contends that, with one of the refineries already under construction and the other at detailed planning stage following the grant of planning permission, it should be given power to construct this further mile of railway which will lead to a loading terminal next to the refinery but away from the nearest centre of population at South Benfleet, almost two miles away. This would have the effect of taking potential heavy traffic off the roads.
The House will have great sympathy with the local residents, with the local authority which has now inherited the planning powers of the county council and with the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, who are all understandably concerned about the effect on the area of a further introduction of potentially dangerous industrial and commercial activities, especially when the Langley fire and the Flixborough disaster are fresh in mind. However, it is important for us as Members of the House to appreciate that this is a miscellaneous powers Bill which contains provisions affecting various parts of the country and provides much-needed new powers or the extension of existing powers to enable British Rail to carry out its functions and undertake the difficult tasks which we in Parliament have laid upon it.
The Bill has already been debated on Second Reading. It has been carefully considered by an Unopposed Bills Committee, by whom it was amended. If it is allowed to proceed it will be scrutinised in the House of Lords where the local authorities, if they wish, or any other person or body will be able to be heard and to call evidence in support of their case as a result of lodging a petition in the usual way. I accept that in the dispute between the environmentalists and local protectionists on the one hand and the oil companies and the Secretary of State on the other hand the local interests can have their case effectively ventilated at every opportunity—and this is one of those opportunities.
Understandably, local interests are strongly opposed to still further industrial development being allowed in an area which is already thought to be over-laden with high-risk operations and they are aggrieved by the insensitivity of successive Ministers to their plight, which


they see as having been not simply ignored but deliberately made worse by British Rail. British Rail, however, is not responsible for planning decisions. It has its statutory duties consequent upon those decisions and it should not be prevented from discharging those duties because there is opposition to planning decisions which have already been taken.
I understand that the Government support the Bill, which because of the numerous important powers it contains should in my view be allowed to proceed to the statute book after it has received further scrutiny by a Select Committee in the House of Lords. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to pass this stage and proceed as normal to Third Reading at a later day.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Clause 3

INTERPRETATION

Sir Bernard Braine: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, leave out "3".

Mr. Speaker: I assume that it will be for the convenience of the House if we discuss at the same time the hon. Member's second amendment, in Clause 6, page 6, leave out lines 9 to 17.

Sir B. Braine: These amendments seek to remove from the Bill all reference to the provision of a spur line linking the mainland with Canvey Island in order to serve the purposes of two proposed oil refineries. Let me say right at the outset that I have absolutely no quarrel with the rest of the Bill and I hope that if my amendments are accepted the Bill will make rapid progress. Its purpose was explained with great clarity by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) on Second Reading and again today. But the provision I am seeking to delete, which is described in the Bill as "Work No. 3", touches, as the hon. Gentleman has recognised, upon a matter of major controversy on both sides of the Thames, in Essex

and Kent and particularly on Canvey Island which is in my constituency. Moreover, for reasons which hon. Members will readily appreciate, the controversy has taken a sharper and more urgent character since the terrible disaster at Flixborough.
I set out the history of the matter and the nature of our objections to further oil refinery development in the Thames Estuary in considerable detail on Second Reading. I will not go over the same ground now save to remind the House of certain salient facts because these are absolutely fundamental to any fair consideration of the amendments I am asking the House to accept.
First, as a result of planning decisions made by both Labour and Conservative Governments, two new oil refineries are to be built on Canvey Island which comprises less than 4,000 acres and yet provides homes for no fewer than 30,000 people. Once those refineries are built nearly one-half of the island, where a large population has been encouraged by the planning industry to make their homes, will be occupied by oil, gas and chemical installations and storage tanks which are officially classified as hazardous. The two refineries are being introduced despite continued and bitter opposition from residents, the local district council and the planning authority, and after I have repeatedly drawn the attention of Parliament to the risks involved. In my view what has been done in this regard is—I choose my words carefully—criminally irresponsible.
Secondly, even without these refineries it is now generally accepted that Canvey already has too great a concentration of high fire risks for the health and safety of its inhabitants. Currently we have no fewer than 100 million gallons capacity storage of inflammable and dangerous material on the island, some of it perilously near people's homes.
The danger was freely acknowledged as recently as last November by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) who was the then Minister for Local Government and Development in the Department of the Environment. He was the only Minister in the Department who had the sense to go and look at the area and judge whether, to use his words, we were reaching "saturation point"
with these installations. This was what he said:
a few weeks ago, because of my anxiety"—
the same anxiety as my hon. Friend has expressed—
whether we were reaching saturation point with oil refineries in this area, I spent the whole morning flying over it in a helicopter, because one gets a much better impression of this sort of development from the air. From that experience, I believe that my hon. Friend is right—that we ought to consider very carefully the whole implications of any further development of this kind in the area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 903–4.]
He went on to assure the House that following his examination from the air he was having discussions with his colleagues and was considering the matter.
That went some way towards meeting my repeated requests that before any additional hazards were added to those already in the area we ought to have an inquiry into the totality of the effect of all these separate planning decisions, including the one envisaged in the Bill, on the environment of my constituents.
That was seven months ago. All that has happened since is that, despite the promises made during the election by no less a person than the Prime Minister to look into this matter, such an inquiry has been refused. Indeed, the Secretary of State for the Environment has let it be known that he is minded—those are his words—to authorise a third refinery opposite us at Cliffe in Kent.
It is against this background, therefore, that we should view the provision in the Bill to which I take such strong objection. Work No. 3 involves the provision of a rail link with Canvey cutting through the little green belt left to us in South-East Essex, crossing the creek which divides the island from the mainland by a bridge, and then on to the rail depot in the middle of the new refineries. In effect it would add one more hazard to those which we already have, because only a fool would deny that there are always risks in handling and transshipping highly inflammable products.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, anticipating my remarks, argued that if we are to have refineries it is safer to move dangerous substances by rail rather than by road. May I say in passing that I still refuse to believe that after Flixborough the Government

will dare to permit these additions to our existing and considerable accumulation of risks. However the hon. Member is right to say that it is safer to move such substances by rail rather than by road, and I serve notice here and now that we shall fight tooth and nail against any increase in hazardous traffic on the restricted roads in South-East Essex. On the other hand, movement by pipeline is far safer than movement by rail.
If the hon. Gentleman has any doubt about that, let him consult the fire services. Every fire service in the country will give him a clear answer. It is our contention, therefore, that if we are to have these monstrosities inflicted upon us there should be no movement of the product off Canvey Island by rail. Such movement should be by pipeline.
Here we come to the crux of the matter. This is where I invite all hon. Members to consider not only whether the provision in the Bill is objectionable but whether it is even necessary. One of the two refineries proposed does not need a railway link at all. In a letter dated 11th January, the Chief Legal Adviser and Solicitor of British Rail told me:
It is perhaps worth mentioning that Occidental Oil Ltd are unlikely now to want direct rail access to their refinery, favouring, for technical reasons, loading sidings on the mainland, serviced by Work No. 1 "—which incidentally was authorised by the British Railways Act 1972—" to which their product would be pumped by pipeline.
Thus the rail link is not necessary in respect of one of the refineries.
7.15 p.m.
As to the other refinery, British Rail already has power to build a line on the mainland up to the creek. This power was given to it in the 1972 Act and will not expire until 31st December 1975. That was confirmed to me by British Rail's Legal Adviser in the same letter. Thus there is no need for this provision at all and certainly no need for it before the end of 1975. In any event, for the sake of safety the rail terminal should be on the other side of the creek in the view of my constituents and the local authority. It makes sense that it should be as far away from the residential areas as possible with a water barrier in between.
In any event it is madness to contemplate giving powers to bring the line on to the island before the results of the Flixborough inquiry and its implications have


been made fully known to this House and, perhaps even more important, to my constituents. For me, and I hope the House as a whole, the issue is clear. Surely no one has the right to add additional hazards to the already endangered environment of my constituency—neither the Government, arguing as they do in this case that the national interest requires that our amenities and our safety should take second place, nor any statutory undertaking.
There is one other consideration which I know the local authority would wish me to mention. Canvey Island is now in the new Castle Point District Council area. The council, which is Labour-controlled, is unanimously opposed to the provisions of the Bill because of the impact the rail link will have on our much-threatened amenities. For example, it argues that the line will traverse an area of flat, pleasant green belt land which gives a feeling of spaciousness rare in South Essex. The council tells me that with the advent of the dominating oil refineries from the south, it is important that the contrast between the intervening rural area and the industrial installations should not be impaired. In the view of the district council, the proposed rail link and viaduct across the creek would damage the rural character and reduce the effectiveness of this part of the proposed green belt. The district council urges that a less conspicuous means of transporting the refinery products should be selected, such as an underground pipeline, and that the proposal to construct an extended rail link should be opposed.
Thus there is no need for this provision at all. It is not only objectionable; it is unnecessary. I am truly atonished that British Rail is so lacking in sensitivity and imagination that in the face of the arguments I put up on Second Reading it still insists on its retention, all the more so because since Second Reading we have had the experience of the Flixborough disaster and widespread comment in the national Press about the implications for my constituency.
I know that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is a reasonable and fair man. We have served together on several Select Committees. I hope that after hearing my argument and that of others who may contribute to the debate he will voluntarily with

draw this provision. If he cannot find it in his heart to do so, I trust that the House will give British Rail a short, sharp answer by accepting my amendments and striking this objectionable and unnecessary provision out of the Bill.

Mr. John Wakeham: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine). He is certainly well known in this House, and I have discovered from my short time here that he is particularly well known for fighting the causes of his constituents with vigour. I will not repeat all the arguments he advanced on Second Reading. I represent 30,000 of the people whom he represented before the last election. Therefore I know full well the strength of feeling of the people in this part of South-East Essex. They are concerned about the situation and their feelings have been put strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East.
I wish the Bill no harm and it has my general support, but I believe that it would be better if it were amended in the way proposed. There are 300,000 people living in the southern part of Essex, and if two more refineries are sited in the area there will then be four refineries in all on that part of the Essex coast. That is far too many on Thames-side.

Mr. George Cunningham: The Bill is not concerned with authorising or not authorising refineries. It relates to a stretch of railway one mile in length.

Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate that point, but the nation and the House has been shocked by the tragedy of Flixborough. The Chief Inspector of Factories has been giving warnings of the dangers of these processes for years. I believe that a rail link is not the best way of transporting dangerous products in this area. If the amendment is accepted, it will give an opportunity to consider the matter again when the inspector has made his report on the Flixborough disaster. We can learn from that lesson and avoid possible tragedies.

Mr. Richard Body: Anybody who heard the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) cannot fail to be anxious about this issue. He


put his argument with fervour and perhaps with passion, and on earlier occasions it may be said that his case was presented with more restraint and moderation.
We can well understand how he and his constituents must feel when they are given no satisfactory explanation about the situation thrown up by the Bill. There is concern not only in Essex, but also in places far distant from that area, following the publicity given to this matter by my hon. Friend in respect of the dangers which can come to Canvey Island. Therefore, I hope that there will be some reconsideration of this matter relating to Work No. 3. If a satisfactory explanation or assurance is not now given, then the matter will have to go to a vote.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I wish to support the amendment and I hope that it will succeed. I shall ask my hon. Friends—those who appear, and I believe that there will be quite a number—to vote for the amendment. We have given undertakings to many residents in Canvey Island that the Liberal Party will support this proposal.
We must remember that since 1950 the population of Canvey Island has been allowed to rise from a figure of 7,000 to 30,000. It is natural that those people should be anxious about the situation following the Flixborough disaster. We should like to see far greater urgency on these matters and refineries not being allowed to multiply.
Reference has been made to a letter which has been received on the subject by no less a person than the present Prime Minister. I would remind the House that the letter, dated 18th February and signed by the personal assistant to the Prime Minister, said:
There is a very strong case for a thorough and full investigation of the whole affair, pending which no planning permission would be granted.
A great deal of evidence has been given to me on this matter, and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has already given the House a full account of the situation. It must be said that there is a fire risk since the edge of the EMI complex will be only 200 yards from homes. There will be only two exits and this will be insufficient in a case of emergency. Then there is the

question of pollution. I understand that 40 tons of sulphur dioxide would be emitted daily into the atmosphere. Then there is the hazard of tankers with a very large capacity. I have before me an account of what happened when one small ship ran aground in Canvey not so long ago. The people of Canvey do not trust public inquiries, for on three occasions decisions favourable to the islanders have later been reversed.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify one point? It seems to me that the case for the oil refinery has been settled, and if I am wrong perhaps I shall be corrected. Is there any evidence to show that rail-borne oil tankers are a hazard in any part of the country, and can he say whether there has been any accident to cause the concern to which he refers?

Mr. Ross: There was the recent accident in Slough and on that occasion I remember seeing on television housewives remonstrating with lorry drivers.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I listened with sympathy to the case put by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) who made his point ably and forcefully, but if the amendment is carried what compulsion will be placed on the oil company to use the pipeline? Would not the oil companies turn to the most immediate form of transport—namely, road transport. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that rail is preferable to road.

Mr. Ross: I should like to see far more traffic of this nature involving oil and oil products going by rail. In terms of Canvey, which has only two points of access to the island, that would seem to make a great deal of sense. But, as I understand the situation, the planning authority could insist that oil should be taken from the island by pipeline. It can lay down that condition.
To turn to my own constituency, the Isle of Wight, there have been some recent borings for oil. Unfortunately, none has been found. We were concerned to know how the oil would get from the Isle of Wight to the refinery at Fawley and we were told that we could lay down conditions that it should go by pipeline. This seems to be on a par with the situation in Canvey.
I refer to a Parliamentary Question asked recently of the Secretary of State for the Environment by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. I am afraid that I have no later information than the Answer. It points out that the Secretary of State does not propose to take a decision on the hon. Gentleman's request to revoke the existing planning permission until the outcome of the present negotiations is known. But that is all pre-Flixborough, and the situation is still open for a Ministerial intervention.
If the clause remains in the Bill, it will be interpreted as a further breach of faith with the electors of Canvey and an indication that the holocaust at Flixborough still has not been interpreted properly. I cannot feel that a Labour Government will permit the development of further oil refineries at Canvey. That being the case, the clause ought to be withdrawn.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: It has been said that Kent also has an interest in this issue. Speaking as a Kent Member, I confirm that that is so. My constituency is a few miles across the estuary from that of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), and we in Kent are deeply concerned about the general question of siting refineries on the Thames estuary. I also speak out of concern for the sheer common sense of planning.
In supporting my hon. Friend, I join the tributes which have been paid by other hon. Members to the campaign that he has waged. At times, it seemed impossible to open a newspaper, to turn on the radio or to come to this House without hearing him expressing the case on behalf of his constituents. I am sure that other electors must wish that they had so forceful an elected champion.
I want also to express sympathy for the promoters of the Bill who, to some extent, are innocent victims. Those hon. Members who are concerned about British Rail should understand that in a similar position they too would seek every possible means of protecting their constituents.
I submit that there is a strong case for accepting the amendment and for raising

this matter as a means of trying to persuade the Government to think again about the whole of this planning exercise. Too often in these major planning decisions there is a bureaucratic finality once a decision has been taken. But surely with events such as the Flixborough disaster in our minds, we must as a society have the means to think again. Planning permission has been granted, but does that mean that inexorably we go on to make the mistake worse and worse?
Here we have a high fire risk activity in an area close to a large residential population. That flies in the face of common sense, and as a society we must have the opportunity to think again.
Out of concern for all these matters and out of general concern for considerations of common sense in industrial planning, I hope that the promoters will accept the amendment and so give the planning authorities an opportunity to think again.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I intervene because it is customary for a Government spokesman to state briefly the Government's position on a' Private Bill on these occasions.
The House will recall that the Bill was fully debated on Second Reading, and there is little I can add to what was said on that occasion and to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said in his report on the Bill to Parliament.
He has no objections to any of the provisions in the Bill. As far as the length of rail to be constructed on to Canvey Island is concerned I can only reiterate that this simply enables a rail link to be provided to an oil refinery, planning permission for which has already been given.
We understand the argument of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), and we admire the great diligence with which he has put his constituents' case, but it does not arise particularly and peculiarly on this Bill. I am aware that the hon. Member has requested my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to set in train the revocation of that permission—but it would not be appropriate for me to comment this evening on what the Secretary of State told the hon. Member.
The Bill is merely seeking the authorisation of certain rail works—works which obviously will be constructed only if and when the oil refinery is completed. If any change were to take place in the refinery proposals, no doubt the board would have to think again about the construction of these works.
I therefore ask the House to accept the findings of the committee which examined the Bill with the benefit of expert evidence, and to follow the normal convention on Private Bills by allowing the Bill to proceed intact.

Mr. Cryer: I intervene briefly simply to say that I hope that the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Sir B. Braine) will withdraw his amendment. As I understand it, the planning consent which has been given for the refinery is not in issue here, although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about it and agree that he is right to use every opportunity to raise it. However, it does not have attached to it a condition that a pipeline shall be used. If that was a condition, these works would not arise.
My fear is that, if these clauses are withdrawn and authority is not given to British Rail to provide rail transport, the House will be faced with a request for power to construct these works, which will mean additional expense and further delay. As a consequence, any oil company will far more easily and readily choose road transport, rather than go through the unnecessary procedure of obtaining planning consent to construct a pipeline which, as I say, is not a condition attached to the consent for the refinery.

Sir Bernard Braine: The position is that the powers to provide rail access to the mainland opposite Canvey Island already exist and will remain until the end of 1975. One refinery does not need the railway. The other can pipe its products across the creek. That is an additional safety precaution. It is what the islanders desire. The hon. Gentleman's argument is unrealistic except to the extent that he has touched upon the considerable powers of a planning authority to lay down conditions under which refineries operate. I have been assured again and again by the Secretary of State for the Environment that these powers

exist with regard to safety, and so on. There is no question of the product going on to the road. Pipeline is the answer.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I accept that pipeline is the answer. That is not disputed. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State has power to require the planning conditions that the hon. Gentleman seeks. However, my right hon. Friend has not made that a condition to the consent for the refinery.
As I have said before about a number of other issues, although I accept that the Secretary of State may give assurances, they are not a sufficient guarantee to replace written consent. Therefore, my concern simply is to ensure that these powers are not deleted from the Bill with the result that, when existing powers run out, British Railways have to come back to the House and the whole scheme is lost in a morass of bureaucratic ineptitude, which is a distinct possibility.
I hope that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East will satisfy me about these matters.

Mr. George Cunningham: One lesson to be learned from this debate is that the House is right to have the very rigorous procedures that it has adopted for the processing of Private Bills. The procedures provide for a quasi-judicial examination of the issues in a Private Bill Committee where highly expensive representatives—not incompetent people like me—can put the details of the case and where they can be examined in an impartial atmosphere. That has been done not just in respect of other provisions but in respect of this one as well. It can be done again when the Bill reaches the House of Lords. That is the way in which Parliament, in its wisdom—it was very wise to adopt this procedure for this kind of Bill—has provided for the examination of this kind of issue.

Sir David Renton: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point, but I am sure that he would not wish the House to draw the wrong conclusions. As I understand it, the purpose of these Committees making what he rightly called a quasi-judicial examination is that they should not so much take decisions for the House as reach findings on which the House may or may not


decide to act. In other words, the Committees are much more of an advisory character than a decisive character.

Mr. Cunningham: I completely accept that nothing that a Committee does binds the House and that the House is taking a decision tonight. What I am saying is that the House should be wary in procedures in the Chamber about overriding what has been done or not done in Committee and what can be done or not done in the House of Lords by the same rigorous procedures in the kind of atmosphere that I have described. There were petitions against the Bill which were withdrawn when another work in the earlier draft turned out not to be necessary.
The other feature of the discussion is that everyone has argued against the refineries. We all know that what is troubling the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) is the existence of the refineries. It is not that he is saying that they are all right but he objects to this railway line; he is using—I do not blame him and I would do the same in his circumstances—this opportunity for discussing the rail link to put his case against the siting of the refinery.

Sir Bernard Braine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent me. I am not arguing against the existence of two oil refineries since these have not yet been completed. I am pointing out the existence of other known industrial hazards and saying that it is wrong to add the refineries to them. I am going further and saying that to bring a rail depot handling oil to the island is to add yet a further hazard. To do that is wrong. I am sure that the House has grasped that point even if the hon. Gentleman has not. This is a serious matter. If the amendment is not accepted I know that the feeling in my constituency will be, once again, one of betrayal.

Mr. Cunningham: I am sure that that is the case. I understand the hon. Gentleman's position. He will understand that the House is not deciding tonight whether there should be a rail link on to the island. There is already statutory provision for that. The hon. Gentleman has not taken any opportunity, as he could even on this restricted Bill, to delete the

statutory authority that British Rail now has to put—

Sir B. Braine: Sir B. Braine
rose—

Mr. Cunningham: Even in the Chamber, the matter can be more impartially stated if I can get a sentence out without interruption.
British Rail has statutory authority for the first mile roughly of the spur railway.

Sir B. Braine: I said so.

Mr. Cunningham: With respect, I thought that, in his remarks, the hon. Gentleman implied that the rail link should stop at the creek—

Sir B. Braine: I did.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Cunningham: But there is statutory authority for the rail link to proceed beyond the creek. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take some opportunity, which he could, to move that that existing statutory authority be removed, I could see the logic of his position. But what he is saying is that the statutory authority to proceed beyond the creek by some distance which I forget should not be extended by a further mile to reach the installations in respect of which planning permission has been given and construction is taking place.
The Secretary of State of course has power to revoke the planning permissions which have been given. I suggest that that is the direction in which hon. Gentlemen should be pressing their activities. That is the only way in which they can terminate, safeguard or limit the refinery activities there. They will not remove the abuse by preventing a one-mile stretch of single-track railway. They would have to get the Secretary of State to withdraw the planning permissions if this operation were to succeed.
One does not operate on a major matter like that by starting with a small and consequential matter like the rail link. It would be foolish administration to do so. I would go further and say that if any Government committed such an administrative folly we should all come down on them like a ton of bricks. That is where hon. Members should be pressing their activities. I should have great sympathy with that, but one cannot put the cart before the horse.
About two or three weeks ago, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East spoke, as he has done tonight, feelingly on this subject. On that occasion, he had the strong support of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). He always has had that support because my hon. Friend's constituency is also affected by these refineries. But I know that my hon. Friend does not oppose the rail link because that is not what is troubling him in his constituency.

Sir B. Braine: He has every sympathy.

Mr. Cunningham: I have discussed the point with my hon. Friend and I understand that he is strongly opposed to the refineries but not to the rail link. I had not intended to refer to his opinions, but since the hon. Gentleman implied that he supports him on this occasion, it is fair to say that.

Sir B. Braine: The hon. Gentleman of course has the disadvantage of talking of an area about whose geography he knows nothing. May I help him? Neither the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) nor I are opposed to a rail spur which reaches the other side of the creek opposite Canvey Island. There is no difference between us on that. All I am saying—I am certain that if the hon. Member were here he would agree—is that we on Canvey Island have enough hazards already without inviting an extension of the rail link and the establishment of an oil depot—one more hazard on ton of the others.
All we are insisting is that since one refinery does not want the rail link anyway, the other should pipe its products across the island to join the railway on the other side. That is all that we are asking, and it is monstrous to ignore the point which concerns the 30,000 inhabitants of Canvey Island—namely, that we already have too many hazards. Why should we have any more?

Mr. Cunningham: I understand that. Although I am not as familiar as the hon. Member with the geography of the area—no one would expect me to be—none the less I have done my best to familiarise myself with the geography which is relevant to the proposition.
I note that the stretch of line already authorised and which is not at issue tonight stretches over the creek by approximately a third of its length. It is the further extension from that point which is at issue. As for the pipeline argument, I am advised that some of the products that might be produced might not be capable of transmission by pipeline. I put it no stronger than that, but that is the advice that I have been given.
It is also a fact that most—nearly all—refineries in the country are served by rail and that this is regarded as one of the more desirable forms of transportation—certainly far more desirable than transmission by road. If the transmission from pipeline to rail were to take place far back towards the main line—which is what the hon. Gentleman suggested, I think—that transmission would take place much nearer to Benfleet than it would if the Bill is passed as it stands.
Finally, I repeat that the Bill has been through the quasi-judicial processes of a Private Bill Committee. There were opportunities then to object to this proposal, which were not taken. Nevertheless, there are further opportunities in the House of Lords to put forward objections by petition, in the usual way, and to have them treated extremely carefully—far more carefully than they would be looked at on the Floor of the House. In view of the opportunity for that process to take place, I hope that the House will agree that the amendment should not be accepted.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 59, Noes 141.

Division No. 55.]
AYES
[7.52 p.m.


Aitken, Jonathan
Crowder, F. P.
Hampson, Dr. Keith


Ancram, M.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Banks, Robert
Durant, Tony
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Biffen, John
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Iremonger, T. L.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Body, Richard
Fairgrieve, Russell
Kilfedder, James A.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kimball, Marcus


Budgen, Nick
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'Field)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Corrie, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Crouch, David
Grylls, Michael
Knox, David




Latham, Arthur (Melton)
Redmond, Robert
Tyler, Paul


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waddington, David


MacArthur, Ian
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


McCrindle, R. A.
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
Wakeham, John


McLaren, Martin
Sims, Roger
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT' bridgeWells)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Steel, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Temple-Morris, Peter



Molyneaux, James
Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Mr. Roger Moate and


Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Townsend, C. D.
Mr. Stephen Ross.




NOES


Archer, Peter
Freeson, Reginald
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Armstrong, Ernest
Galpern, Sir Myer
Pavitt, Laurie


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Golding, John
Perry, Ernest G.


Bidwell, Sydney
Gourlay, Harry
Phipps, Dr. Colin


Bishop, E. S.
Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Prescott, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Radice, Giles


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harper, Joseph
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn)
Hunter, Adam
Sandelson, Neville


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
John, Brynmor
Sedgemore, Bryan


Campbell, Ian
Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W)
Selby, Harry


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S.C.(S'hwark, Dulwich)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Sillars, James


Cocks, Michael
Judd, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Cohen, Stanley
Kaufman, Gerald
Small, William


Coleman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Lamond, James
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth. Fulh'm)


Crawshaw, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Stott, Roger


Cronin, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n &amp; F'sb'ry)
Loughlin, Charles
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)
Loyden, Eddie
Tierney, Sydney


Dalyell, Tam
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Tinn, James


Davidson, Arthur
McCartney, Hugh
Tomlinson, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
McElhone, Frank
Urwin, T. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
McNamara, Kevin
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dempsey, James
Madden, M. O. F.
Watt, Hamish


Doig, Peter
Mahon, Simon
Wellbeloved, James


Dormand, J. D.
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
White, James


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Whitehead, Phillip


Dunn, James A.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Meacher, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Eadie, Alex
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Millan, Bruce
Woodall, Alec


English, Michael
Molloy, William
Woof, Robert


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Evans, John (Newton)
Murray, Ronald King



Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk &amp; G'm'th)
O'Halloran, Michael



Flannery, Martin
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. Bob Cryer and 


Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley
Mr. Ted Graham.


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Palmer, Arthur

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill to be read the Third time.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

OBLIGATION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN RELATION TO REHOUSING IN HOUSING ACTION AREAS

"Where a person is to be displaced as a result of the implementation of the provision of this Part of this Act, a local authority shall, if so requested by that person and in so far as practicable, secure that he will be provided with suitable alternative accommodation within a reasonable distance from the locality of the house from which he is to be displaced".—[Mr. Millan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.0 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause will go into the Bill at the end of Part II. It implements an undertaking I gave in Committee to consider including a provision ensuring that, as far as practical, people displaced from their homes in housing action areas would be given an opportunity of remaining in the same locality. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) moved a new clause to this effect in Committee. I said that I would consider it and if convinced would put down a new clause on Report. I have been persuaded of the case and am happy to honour my undertaking.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The House will be cheered by such an auspicious start to the Report stage of this important Bill. I emphasise that it is an important Bill because we have now gone over the same ground twice, for the Conservative Government introduced a similar Bill.
It is a matter of serious concern that we should be meeting now to consider the Report stage of the Bill without the presence of any hon. Member from the Scottish National Party. No doubt Scottish Nationalist Members are not familiar with the procedures of the House, and it may be what is happening on the Floor of the House has escaped their notice. But, of course, none of them was present in the Standing Committee because they

refused the offer of a seat on the Committee. We were therefore unable to hear what advice, if any, the Scottish Nationalists might have chosen to give us in Committee. We are now entering on the Report stage of this very important Bill for Scotland, and not one Scottish Nationalist Member is present.
Is it possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker to suspend our proceedings for perhaps 15 minutes in order to make it possible for the Scottish Nationalists to attend this critical stage of a Bill of such great importance to Scotland?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the Chair has no control over the attendance in this House of any particular Member.

Mr. MacArthur: I must confess that I suspected that you might say something of the kind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is right that the House should note that the Scottish National Party, which makes such a song and dance about housing in Scotland, cannot be bothered to attend the House of Commons at an early and reasonable hour in order to take part in this critical stage of a Bill which is of such great importance to Scotland. It is quite disgraceful.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I appreciate the point that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) and I understand his frustration, since he is one of those conscientious Members who regularly attend Scottish Committees of this House but find themselves having to take on more than their fair share of the load because others are not shouldering their share. The absence of hon. Members from the Scottish National Party might be excusable if this were 4 o'clock in the morning, but 8 o'clock in the evening is a perfectly reasonable hour at which to expect hon. Members from Scotland to discuss an important Scottish Housing Bill. The absence of Scottish National Party Members is an insult to Scotland and a good commentary on the silly Press comments by Scottish Nationalists about Scottish housing.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps one explanation for


the absence of Scottish Nationalists is that they lack any constructive ideas for Scottish housing?

Mr. Taylor: That may be so, but nevertheless I would have thought that all right hon. and hon. Members from Scotland have something to contribute to our consideration of Scotland's housing problems. No doubt some have more to contribute on the subject than others, but all ought to be able to say at least something.
I thank the Minister of State for the valuable concession in new Clause 1. The Bill has been greately improved in Committee. We were grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the patient and understanding way he dealt with our amendments.
New Clause 1 is a very important matter because one of the genuine problems encountered in our city areas is the rehousing of elderly people. Very often they are rehoused, when their old homes are demolished, well away from friends, family, church and all the other things which made life more tolerable to them. It is spendid that we should now be including a provision ensuring that, where possible and practical, they will be rehoused in the same area or in other areas close by.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 3

CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT GRANT OTHER THAN APPLICATIONS RELATING EXCLUSIVELY TO THE PROVISION OF STANDARD AMENITIES

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 16, leave out 'sufficient' and insert:
'appropriate in relation to interests of residents in the area'.
We advanced this proposition in a different form of words in Committee. The Bill provides that a local authority may refuse an improvement grant on any grounds that seem sufficient. What worries us is that there is a very considerable difference in the ways in which different local authorities interpret the provision.

Some are tough with improvement grants and some are generous with them. In Committee, we tried to find wording more appropriate and flexible than "sufficient", and we have had another shot at it for Report.
We suggest that, instead of the local authority simply having the power to turn down an improvement grant on grounds which appear to it to be "sufficient", we should specify that the grounds should be
appropriate in relation to interests of residents in the area.
We mean by this not just residents in the immediate vicinity but throughout the area of the local authority. We believe that our wording would be an improvement. The hon. Gentleman was unable to accept our amendment in Committee. I hope that he will accept this one or at least give an assurance that, in the event of any local authority appearing to act unreasonably or out of character with the general purposes of the Bill, he will look into the matter.

Mr. Michael Ancram: The amendment is important because there are cases where one house only will be found to be in need of improvement and where a grant might be made available by the local authority under the terms of the Bill. The presence of one bad house in an area may have a bad effect on other houses in the area, and the amendment would allow such circumstances to be taken into account by the local authority in determining whether to make an improvement grant.

Mr. James Dempsey: The difficulty in operating improvement grants is that they are discretionary. I do not know whether the words in the amendment are strong enough to deal with the situation. As the grants are discretionary, the matter is left to the mental approach that is adopted by individual local authorities. As a consequence we are never out of hot water in matters of interpretation concerning improvement grants. I have had stand-up arguments with some of the authorities in many areas about improvement grants. If a person renews the electricity wiring in a house that has been standing for 40 years, that work may not be interpreted as an improvement. In that event


no grant will be given. However, I am assured that some of the authorities in Scotland interpret rewiring as a housing improvement and that they are willing to give a grant for it.
Obviously such different approaches create a great deal of trouble. Taxpayers all pay the same taxes and difficulty is created when it is seen in one area that a grant is made available for certain work when it is not available in another area. A friend of mine in Lanark County took over a house. The previous owner-occupier had put up a thin plastic board in one of the rooms so that for various purposes the family could be separated. That was not strictly a fixture, but the authority's interpretation was that the effect of the board was to make a separate apartment. The result was that the new owner-occupier was refused an improvement grant.
Improvement grants as we know are discretionary, and discretion rests with the local authorities. They can take different attitudes. A person under the jurisdiction of local authorities told me that the authority would be willing to give an improvement grant for electricity wiring to be renewed and that it would consider that to be a structural improvement, while another refused.
The local authorities are all at sixes and sevens in interpreting the meaning of an improvement grant. As a result, members of the public who purchase an old house with a view to remodelling are suffering. I hope that my hon. Friend will give us some guidance and will consider the problem which is created as a result of the differing attitudes taken by local authorities. This is a matter that is causing great concern not only in my constituency but in many others. I hope my hon. Friend will consider whether strict guidance can be given to local authorities. That would lead to some uniformity. I should like to see that guidance made mandatory so that development departments in Scotland could lay down the rules and say "These are the rules; obey them." The present degree of tomfoolery that is going on within the authorities in their interpretation of the improvement grant system must be stopped.
If it is not possible to make a set of rules mandatory, I should like my hon. Friend to indicate whether strict lines of guidance, advice and instruction can be given to local authorities to try to bring about a better measure of uniformity and a more generous interpretation of the improvement grant system.

Mr. Millan: I could not accede to the amendment which was tabled in Committee. I explained at that time why it was not possible to do so. We are now dealing with a similar amendment which uses a different set of words. We must basically decide whether we want to allow local authorities to have discretion. In Clause 7 there are standard grant provisions which pick up the provisions of earlier legislation but in this part of the Bill we are dealing with discretionary grants. The essence of such grants is that local authorities must be able to exercise a reasonable amount of judgment. If the central Government were to lay down rules there would no longer be discretionary grants but standard grants.

Mr. Dempsey: That would be a good thing.

Mr. Millan: That is my hon. Friend's opinion, but the local authorities are already complaining about getting far too many instructions from the central Government about what they should and should not do. That applied, for example, when the previous Government determined the rents that should be charged by local authorities. That might also happen if we were to attempt to lay down strict rules. We are willing to give guidance to local authorities on how they should exercise their powers under this kind of legislation. Indeed, we give such guidance.
The wording in the Bill has been in improvement grant legislation since the 1949 Act. As far as I am aware, that wording has not caused any particular difficulty. I do not believe that the wording suggested in the amendment would improve the situation. If cases are brought to my attention—I think I said this in Committee—which demonstrate that a local authority or local authorities generally are behaving unreasonably, I shall be willing to take them up with those authorities. I am not willing to lay down central directions because I think that that would be against the spirit of the clause.

8.15 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Under the previous Government and certainly to date there has been great difficulty because, as the hon. Member for Coat bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has said, there are areas within wider areas. For example, there may be availability of discretionary grants in a burgh and not in a county. There is endless friction when two houses, one on each side of a boundary, receive a different response. This is a serious local matter.

Mr. Millan: I agree, but some of that sort of difficulty is inevitable in local democracy. I must rest on the general proposition that either the grants are discretionary or they are not. If they are discretionary, one local authority can legitimately and reasonably take a different view from another authority in exactly similar circumstances. I do not believe that that can be wholly avoided.
Guidance is already issued to local authorities. I am willing to consider again the guidance that is given, but I do not believe we can completely avoid the kind of difficulty that sometimes results from the system we are operating. As I said in Committee, I do not think that a change in the wording will make any difference. I cannot recommend the amendment because I do not believe that it would even take care of the difficulties that worry some Opposition Members. As I have said, as far as it is possible by guidance and by taking up individual difficulties with local authorities to obviate some of the problems, I will gladly do all I can if the evidence is presented to me.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I think we fully appreciate that the purpose of the amendment has been served. We have had evidence from my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) and the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that this is a problem which exists in many areas. The Minister has given us an assurance that in the event of any general abuse he will consider giving more precise instructions. In those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

AMOUNT OF IMPROVEMENT GRANT

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I beg to move Amendment No. 29 in page 4, line 33, leave out '£2,400' and insert '£3,000'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this amendment it will be appropriate to discuss Amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 7, leave out '£800' and insert '£1,000'.

Mr. Cook: I have tabled the amendment so that the House may have an opportunity to discuss the level of improvement grants and the maximum that has been written into the Bill. It is important that the House should realise that the level set out in this measure is the same as that set out in the 1969 Act. There has been no increase in the level of grants in the past five years, yet we are all aware that there has been an increase in housing costs during that period.
I was kept here until an intolerable hour last night, and I hope that it will not happen again tonight, but at least it gave me the opportunity of consulting the quarterly issue of "Housing and Construction Statistics" in the Library. I found from that document that between 1969 and the third quarter of 1973 house building costs overall increased by 65 per cent. There was an increase also in the cost of materials which are used in the process of modernisation and improvement. For instance, during those four years the cost of sanitary ware increased by 40 per cent., the cost of hardwood by 90 per cent. and the cost of metal furnishings, such as hinges, by 45 per cent.
I have also received information from the housing association in Edinburgh, which is one of the largest in Scotland and has one of the biggest improvement programmes, that over the past five years the cost of modernising a room and kitchen in a tenement has doubled. That is precisely the kind of property that we wish to see improved as a result of the Bill.
A figure of £2,400 is given in the Bill. There is widespread belief that that figure represents the maximum improvement grant, but it does not. It represents the maximum allowable expenditure on


which an improvement grant will be calculated. In effect, the maximum 50 per cent. grant is £1,200, and £1,200 today will not buy the kind of housing services which it bought in 1969.
My case has already been admitted by the Government. The standard grants in Schedule 1 have been increased substantially. The standard grant for the provision of a bath has been increased from £30 to £50, an increase of 66 per cent. The standard grant for the creation of a toilet has been increased from £50 to £75, an increase of 50 per cent. The standard grant for the insertion of a sink has been increased from £15 to £50. an an increase of 230 per cent. If we admit the case for an increase in the level of standard grants, it is nonsense not to do so for discretionary grants.
The amendment is moderate. It proposes a modest increase of only 25 per cent. I do not pretend that that increase corresponds to the increase in prices over the past five years but at least it recognises that increases have occurred.
I recognise that the amendment has significant financial implications. My hon. Friend may feel that it is inappropriate to insert it in the Bill on Report. He may wish for time to digest what I and other hon. Members say in the debate, and if I can help to give him that time by withdrawing the amendment I shall consider doing so.
I believe that my hon. Friend has power to introduce a statutory instrument to vary the maximum level of improvement grants. Before I consider withdrawing the amendment, I am sure the House will want from him an assurance that he will consider whether a case already exists for increasing the maximum level of the improvement grant.

Mr. David Steel: I am glad to support the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). The words of the amendment are moderate, as indeed was his speech. The figure, as he said, was laid down in 1969. Inflationary costs in the building trade, which is perhaps the trade most seriously affected by inflation, make it necessary for that ceiling to be reviewed. The work of housing associations and the financing of the voluntary housing movement will be made more difficult by the maintenance of this five-year-old ceiling.
When the White Paper was under discussion, I had a conversation with a member of the previous administration, from which I gained the impression that one argument put forward when the 75 per cent. improvement grant scheme was replaced by the 50 per cent. scheme was that 75 per cent. of the old ceiling might be much the same as 50 per cent. of a new ceiling if and when legislation were introduced. There is acute disappointment that the Bill provides no increase in the ceiling when the grant offered is being cut back to 50 per cent.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central has asked for a modest increase which will not fully meet the inflationary costs. Have the Government cut back for financial reasons? That would at least be a reason that we could understand. If that is not so, the Government must justify their failure to increase the figure.
If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central does not receive the assurance he seeks—and I advise him to seek a firm assurance—I hope that he will not withdraw the amendment but that he will press it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that this is an important amendment. The Government should at least show sympathy to the general sentiments which have been advanced. Although the total level of expenditure on improvement grants has increased substantially—and no Government can ignore the amount of cash involved—and although improvement grants have not necessarily gone to the properties for which they were originally designed, in view of the escalating costs the figure of £2,400 should be reviewed. It is unlikely that we shall have another housing Bill for some considerable time.
Unless we have a clearer idea of the amount of work involved in the new 75 per cent. and 90 per cent. grants, it might be difficult for the Government to give a categorical assurance, but I hope that the Minister will show sympathy and understanding.

Mr. Milan: May I first refer to Amendment No. 30, which has not been mentioned. As the repairs grant is a new grant, it is difficult to argue that the


figure is out of date. Therefore, there is no case for an increase from £800 to £1,000.
Coming to Amendment No. 29, the limit was fixed in 1969. There was a substantial increase in 1969, from £1,000 to £2,400, and there was in that an element of built-in inflation—proofing for subsequent years. It is perhaps a little misleading to make a straight comparison between 1969 and the present, and to say that nothing has been done in the interval. In term of present-day costs it is difficult to defend £2,400 as being right, if we considered it to be right in 1969. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) said, one has to have regard to the overall expenditure and the sort of improvement that one wishes to see carried out under the terms of the Bill.
The limit is under review. After the Bill goes through we shall be able, if necessary, to amend the figure. I cannot give any indication of what the new figure might be, but it is under review. After the Bill has gone through we shall be able to consider it right up to date. If necessary, we would be able to increase the limit. However, I cannot give an absolute assurance on that point tonight.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to introduce legislation five years after the last legislation, and to indicate that if the House leaves the figure as it is there will be a review after the legislation has gone through, is a peculiar procedure?

Mr. Millan: No. If we review the figure after the Bill goes through, we may get some indication of any reaction that there may be in housing action areas. That is important in the context of total Government expenditure. We shall then be able to obtain the most up-to-date information and there will be no difficulty about reviewing the figure because any increase can be made by order.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's assurance. I should like to press him further on two matters. I appreciate that he cannot disclose any figure that he may have in mind. However, I understood him to say not that the review would take place after the

Bill goes through but that it is taking place now. If so, he must have some idea of the time scale. Will he indicate when we are likely to hear any announcement following the review?
I apologise if I and other hon. Members were remiss in not mentioning the repairs grant. That is a new grant. Therefore, it may be unfair to compare it with 1969. Nevertheless, I am aware of criticism of the grant, particularly by major urban authorities, not because it will fail to cater for repairs to any one dwelling but because it is not considered adequate to deal with possible structural repairs in tenements in housing action areas. Will he keep that level under review and not neglect it?

Mr. Millan: That level, too, can be changed by order. This is a completely new grant. It is difficult to review it when it has not come into operation. We must have some experience of how it operates.
I should like to make a general point about public expenditure. We must have some priorities in this whole area. We are introducing a special provision for housing action areas. The Government are providing valuable assistance to those areas because they believe that priority should go to areas where there is the maximum need for improvement.
This is one example of looking at the scene as a whole and determining where additional money can best be placed. I accept that there is a strong argument about the maximum limit here. I hope that soon after the Bill has become an Act we shall be able to announce our conclusions on the review.

Mr. Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend comment on the approach to the incorporation of repairs for improvement grant purposes? This matter has been advocated for many years and I am delighted to congratulate him on introducing this element. However, I should have thought that the Department would have some idea about the extent of repairs. Many cases have been put to the Department about repairs. The claims are usually for structural improvements to houses which should attract improvement grants. Therefore, they must have provided some guide to the value to be placed on the repairs element to arrive


at the figure of £2,400. Has my hon. Friend any information on that point?

Mr. Millan: We have carried out certain surveys—for example, in Glasgow. Our information is that it is reasonable. For example for a tenement building with eight or 10 apartments, if the £800 is multiplied by eight or 10 a substantial figure is made available for repairs. After experience we can look at it again and, if it is not a reasonable figure, we can change it. The £800 is subsumed in the £2,400. By adding to one we inevitably take away a little from the other. All these matters will be kept under review and, if necessary, we can make any changes by order.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: In view of the assurance that I have received from my

hon. Friend, that the matter is under active review and that we can expect an announcement soon after the Bill becomes law, I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Gentlemen had thought to be present and had taken an interest in the Committee stage of the Bill and had perhaps put down their own amendments, they might have had a better locus for speaking in the debate. I hope that after the review we may have a figure even greater than the £3,000 which I have included in my amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 16, Noes 130.

Division No. 56.]
AYES
18.35 p.m.


Crowder, F. P.
Stanbrook, Ivor
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Winterton, Nicholas


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy



Kilfedder, James A.
Tyler, Paul
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacCormack, Iain
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Mr. David Steel and


Reid, George
Watt, Hamish
Mr. Douglas Henderson


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)





NOES


Archer, Peter
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, John (Newton)
Meacher, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'klrk &amp; G'm'th)
Millan, Bruce


Bates, Alf
Flannery, Martin
Molloy, William


Baxter, William
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Murray, Ronald King


Bishop, E. S.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Oakes, Gordon


Blenkinsop, Arthur
George, Bruce
O'Halloran, Michael


Boardman, H.
Golding, John
O'Malley, Brian


Booth, Albert
Gou'lay, Harry
Orbach, Maurice


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Graham, Ted
Ovenden, John


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Perry, Ernest G.


Buchan, Norman
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Phipps, Dr. Colin


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn)
Harper, Joseph
Prescott, John


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Hooley, Frank
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Radice, Giles


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Cocks, Michael
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rooker, J. W.


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Judd, Frank
Sedgemore, Bryan


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow. Maryhill)
Kaufman, Gerald
Selby, Harry


Crawshaw, Richard
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S.C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)


Cronin, John
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Cryer, G. R.
Latham, Arthur(City of W'minsterP'ton)
Skinner, Dennis


Dalyell, Tam
Lawson. George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Small, William


Davidson, Arthur
Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Lee, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies. Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth.Fulh'm)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Stott, Roger


Dempsey, James
Loyden, Eddie
Strang, Gavin


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Dormand, J. D.
McCartney, Hugh
Tierney, Sydney


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Maclennan, Robert
Tomllnson, John


Eadie, Alex
McNamara, Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Madden, M. O. F.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mahon, Simon
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


English. Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Wellbeloved, James




White, James
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Whitehead, Phillip
Wise, Mrs. Audrey
Mr. James Hamilton and


Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)
Mr. James A. Dunn.


Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6

PAYMENT OF IMPROVEMENT GRANTS

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 25. leave out may ' and insert
'shall, subject to the following provisions of this section'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it may be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
It may also be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 5, in page 6, line 37, at end insert—
'(1A) Improvement grants shall be paid by local authorities within a period of one month of the approval by them of the works'.

Mr. Millan: The Government amendments meet an undertaking I gave in Committee to introduce proper amendments to provide that a local authority should not delay paying an improvement grant after the work had been completed and had been passed to its satisfaction. The effect of the amendment is that the payment will be made within a month after that. This will mean that people who have spent money will have that money refunded by the local authority in good time, thus obviating delays which occasionally arise in some local authority areas.
The three amendments to which I speak are preferable in wording to the other amendment, but the intention is the same.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: This is one of the important amendments about which we were able to make progress in Committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work lie did in putting forward the case. We brought to the Minister's attention several instances where there had been long delays in payment of improvement grants in cases where individuals had received tradesmen's bills which they were

not able to meet. We achieved a great deal in Committee.
Some of my hon. Friends have objected to the Division on the previous amendment. They are wrong. They may object to the fact that we had a Division on an important amendment on an issue raised by hon. Members who were not present in Committee but who put down an amendment on Report and arrived late for our proceedings.

Mr. David Steel: This amendment was not discussed in Committee. It was an important amendment. I am surprised that the hon. Member takes that view.

Mr. Taylor: I did not intend to offend the hon. Member. If he had been present in Committee he could have moved that amendment and many other important amendments. I hope that all our Scottish colleagues will take the opportunity in future Committees to try to get important changes in important legislation of this nature.
This is an important amendment. I congratulate the Minister on his achievement and thank the Government for this concession.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I should like to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the mover of the amendment. In Committee the Minister accepted the argument in principle. He did not like the language. He has now happily been able to introduce suitably elegant language. We thank him. When one looks at the Paper and observes the amendments and the words involved in them, this one looks innocuous and trivial.
Although the words appear minor, we shall be ensuring that thousands of people in Scotland are paid their grants within a reasonable period. That is very important. In many cases the sums involved will represent the largest single investment that those people will ever make, apart from purchasing their houses. We are grateful to the Minister for having brought in such a valuable amendment to meet the points we made in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 6, line 26, leave out ' after' and insert ' within one month of'.

No. 4, in page 6, line 31, leave out on' and insert 'within one month of'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 7

DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO MAKE IMPROVEMENT GRANTS WHERE AN APPLICATION RELATES EXCLUSIVELY TO THE PROVISION OF STANDARD AMENITIES AND AMOUNT THEREOF

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 7, line 23, leave out, '15' and insert '10'.
I shall be brief in introducing the amendment, which is a minor proposal which flows from an amendment of mine which was successful in Standing Committee. That amendment was made to Clause 16 and it reduced from 15 years to 10 years the potential life of a building in which the local authority could insist on improving. That was an amendment that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) forgot to mention in the otherwise illuminating letter that he sent to the Scotsman earlier this week.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that there were consequential amendments resulting from that amendment, and I would have thought that this would be one of them. Unless we make the amendment we shall create the paradoxical situation in which a local authority can insist on a higher standard for a building with a life of 10 years but the building may not be granted an improvement grant by the local authority. That is how I read the Bill. If that is correct, I am sure it is not the intention of the House. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the amendment.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) wishes to convince the Liberal and Nationalist Members present that they should support the amendment, but whether they support it or not I hope that the Government will consider it seriously because it is a fair and reasonable suggestion.
There are at least four reasons why the amendment deserves close attention. First, at the very least 10 years is a

lengthy period which in the case of many old houses would be a useful life and would make them worth improving. Secondly, such a provision could be used where only one standard amenity was lacking. We are not necessarily talking about properties which are grossly lacking in necessary amenities. Thirdly, under subsection (4) the owner of the property would normally receive only a 50 per cent. grant and would clearly therefore wish to invoke powers under the clause only if he was prepared to meet a substantial proportion of the cost. Where the owner believed that expenditure was justifiable, his view would carry considerable weight. Fourthly, local authorities are sometimes over-optimistic in assessing the time by which they intend to deal with certain properties.
As it stands, the clause refers to whether the property is in the opinion of the local authority
likely to be available for use as a house for a period of at least 15 years".
Although the local authority might at the time in question believe that it will be in a position to deal with the property in a much shorter period, more often than not its assessment would be likely to be over-optimistic in view of the capacity of its officials to carry out the work.

Mr. Millan: I can accept the amendment. It is a logical extension of the amendment to Clause 16 that I accepted in Committee which provided that a local authority in a housing action area could have a house brought up to the higher standard, which includes the provision of standard amenities, where it had a life of at least 10 rather than 15 years.
In this part of the Bill, which deals with standard grants generally, it is logical for the same time limit to be applied, and I am happy to recommend that the House should accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

CONDITIONS TO BE OBSERVED WITH RESPECT TO HOUSES IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN IMPROVEMENT GRANT HAS BEEN MADE, AND REGISTRATION THEREOF

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 10, line 23, leave out 'of paragraph 1'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 16

DECLARATION OF HOUSING ACTION AREAS FOR DEMOLITION

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 8. in page 15, line 28, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
'(3) The standard specified by the local authority for the purpose of this section shall be that all the houses in the area shall meet or shall be brought up to the following standard, that is to say, that all the houses in the area:

(a) shall meet the tolerable standard; and
(b) shall be in a good state of repair (disregarding the state of internal decorative repair) having regard to the age, character and locality of the houses,

and, where the local authority are satisfied that the houses in the area have a future life of not less than 10 years, they may in addition specify that all the houses in the area shall be provided with all of the standard amenities.'
This is a drafting amendment which clarifies the present subsection (3). The sense is exactly the same. We were not sure that we had the wording right in Clause 16(3) and therefore we have sought to re-draft it. That is the purpose of this amendment. I believe we now have the wording right.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

FUNCTIONS OF SECRETARY OF STATE, AND DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO PUBLISH INFORMATION

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 18, line 24, at end insert:
'and specifying whether the plans for the area are for demolition, improvement, or both'.
We are all aware that many of the residents in housing action areas will be elderly people who get confused by official forms. The purpose of this amendment is simply to express the hope that the Government by this amendment, by circular letter or by other advice to local authorities, will ensure that people who receive such notices receive them in such form that they will clearly understand what is planned for the area—in other words, whether it is demolition, improvement or both. We sometimes forget the extent to which old people can be confused by official forms, as indeed even young people can. I hope the intention

for the area can be made clear by the local authority.

Mr. Ancram: I am very glad to support this amendment because the point was raised during the Committee stage of the Bill where a different amendment was put forward to change the definitions within the Bill. The Minister of State made it clear that this would cause complications but at the same time gave an assurance that he would make sure it was made clear to those who would be affected what kind of improvement or demolition was to be done.
As I am sure the Minister of State can see, the purpose of this amendment is not to change the definition. It is merely to add to the power under which already every owner, lessee or occupier is to be notified that action is to be taken, and that the house is in a housing action area, to make sure that the person concerned knows what kind of action is to be taken.
At the Committee stage it was suggested that this was of such importance that it should be made clear in capital letters because it is the experience of those who have to deal with people in the old-housing treatment areas and other housing treatment areas that it causes a great amount of confusion to people when they receive official notification of this kind. They do not know whether they are to have a house at all, whether they have to move out and go to a different area or whether they will be able to come back to their house after it has been renovated. I hope the Minister of State realises the importance of this amendment and accepts that it is in line with the assurances he gave during the Committee stage.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: The spirit of the amendment is extremely important, whether or not the Government feel able to accept the wording. In my view, if in subsection (6) of the clause the Minister is willing to spell out the kind of formal notice the Government have in mind, that possibly meets the case. Certainly, I support the point made by both hon. Members about constituents who under the present procedure come bringing these notices. These are issued in different form by different local authorities and in my experience are couched


in pure lawyers' language rather than layman's terms and many people find them confusing and difficult to understand.
In a sense this is a public relations job. If the Scottish Office can give guidance to local authorities by showing not just the legally required notice and the legally required form but a clear explanation, preferably using a model of the kind of literature which should be distributed, that might meet the case. This is an area in which there is a tremendous need for an improvement of present practice.

Mr. Millan: I am happy to give all of the assurances that have been asked for, while at the same time recommending that we should not accept the amendment. By itself it would add nothing to the Bill because subsection (5)(b) already provides that the effect of the resolution has to be intimated to the individual owner, lessee or occupier.
Not only would the words add nothing, but they would slightly detract from the notice because they talk about the "plans for the area" whereas what the individual is concerned about more than anything else is his individual house. The matter can and will be dealt with by the Secretary of State prescribing under the following subsection the forms to be used.
This is the point I made in Committee. I give the assurance that it is our intention that the form shall be as clear as possible, both as to the effect of the resolution generally and especially as to the effect of the resolution on the individual recipient of the notice.
We shall see in drafting the forms that we avoid technical and legal language as far as we can and put the forms in such a way as to make them thoroughly intelligible to those receiving them.

Mr. David Steel: It is to some extent impossible sometimes to draft a legally required form in a way that is intelligible. What may be required are two forms, one carrying out the legal obligation and an explanatory leaflet setting out what is happening.

Mr. Millan: There may be a difficulty in the Secretary of State prescribing the explanatory leaflet. I am not sure that

we have any authority to do that. I believe that the powers we have to prescribe the forms and the information contained therein and so on can take care of this point. I give the assurance that we are conscious of this, and not just in this area. Large numbers of people receive official notices about large numbers of things which they find quite unintelligible although the officials who send them out often do so in good faith, believing that they are perfectly intelligible. There has to be an effort made in this area. We will do all we can to see that these forms are put in an intelligible way.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am grateful to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) for his support. I am glad that action is being taken but I would not recommend the method suggested by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles because of our own experience in Government in implementing the Rent Act. Then we had two forms going to people, one of them saying, "You are being evicted fro m your house. You have to leave it," and another, explanatory, note saying, "This does not mean you have to leave your house." We should have one clear form. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 18, line 24, at end insert:
(c) make arrangements for public meetings at which the plans can be explained in detail by the officials of the authority.
This amendment follows logically from what the Minister said in a previous discussion concerning the individual. We take the view that there is no substitute for personal contact. The spirit behind the amendment is that there should be an onus on the local authority to make direct personal contact with people involved. It was argued in Committee that it would be difficult to hold a public meeting if only a small housing action area were involved. But that is not a valid argument, because it is surely much easier to have a small meeting for the few people involved. If objection is taken to the "public meeting" point, I have no doubt that the Minister can produce more elegant language to cover the point more precisely.
There are other points which underline the need for the amendment. It is in the interests of the local authority that if somebody is anxious about the situation an official should explain to him how a proposal will affect the area. This can often speed up the process and relieve the burden on local councillors and others. This line of approach might well be extended to other areas of planning activity. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment and the spirit in which it is moved.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I think that the Amendment will become of greater importance in future than might appear to be the case at present. When the new local authorities come into being, the new areas will range much more widely than those to which we have become accustomed. Many people in the old areas have got into the habit over the years of going direct to their local councillor and seeing him personally. This kind of contact may well be lost in future, and I feel that the amendment would help immeasurably to assist those who find themselves far away from the administrative centre.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the intention underlying the amendment. Rumours can abound when a housing action area is established and official forms are sent out. People in the area may say "That property is to come down" or "Those people are to be rehoused", and it is important that the faceless man who draws up plans for the area should be able to attend meetings and answer the public's questions.
I see one small defect in the amendment. It refers to "public meetings". There may be a problem if proposals in a housing action area involve only two or three people. Therefore it may not be necessary to hold a large meeting, and a small meeting with residents concerned might well be the answer. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that when a housing action area is established local authorities will be encouraged—and if need be compelled—to arrange for officials to ensure that there is a meeting at which complaints can be aired and questions from local residents can be answered.

Mr. Dempsey: Does my hon. Friend see anything in the proposed legislation to prevent local authorities having meetings with the individuals concerned? I get the impression that those hon. Members who are in favour of the amendment believe that officials are unable to have such meetings or are not interested in having them. In my own constituency, meetings of this kind occur. I have attended meetings with councillors and officials and the local people involved to explain in detail the implications of what was about to take place in specific areas.
The fact that this amendment has been spoken to so effectively makes me wonder whether there is any doubtful aspect of the legislation which may preclude such essential consultations taking place between the people involved and those responsible for closures, removals and transfers of families. I hope that my hon. Friend can clear up that doubt.

Mr. Millan: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that there is no prohibition or restriction on meetings between officials or elected members and individuals involved. In fact, I believe that it is almost inconceivable in most circumstances that there should not be personal contact of one sort or another, in many cases perhaps by officials visiting individual houses. In view of that, the general idea behind the amendment is one which I wholeheartedly accept.
If the housing action area procedure is to be successful, it is necessary for the individuals concerned to know exactly what is happening and to be reassured about their position at every stage of the procedure.
The reason why I cannot accept the amendment is basically that which I advanced on a similar amendment moved in Committee, although I have considered it again since then. I said in Committee and I repeat now that I have considerable sympathy with the purpose behind the amendment but that I cannot accept it because it is too specific and would not fit all the individual circumstances likely to be involved.
There may be a housing action area involving only a small number of people where individual contact obviously is more sensible. There may be an area involving very large numbers of people


where a public meeting would not be a suitable vehicle for letting the people involved know what was happening. We have to remember that the individuals concerned are not just interested in what is happening in the area. They want to know what is happening to them personally. Each individual will have his problems. That is especially true in the case of an area for improvement and demolition. Some people will have houses which are to be improved. Some will have houses which are to be demolished. Some will be tenants, others owner-occupiers and others landlords.
It is the experience of those of us who have attended public meetings to explain to local residents what is happening, even on a general issue where everyone is affected basically the same way, that it is very difficult to get such a meeting suitably organised so that people go away feeling satisfied, reassured and knowing what is to happen to them. That becomes more difficult with many individuals with different points of view and different problems. It would be a mistake, therefore, to believe that a public meeting by itself would necessarily do the job.
There is a danger that if we write the amendment into the Bill we suggest to local authorities that, regardless of the circumstances, provided that they arrange some kind of public meeting which not everyone affected will necessarily be able to attend, that is the end of the story. I should not like to encourage authorities to act like that. They will be encouraged to take every possible step, by public meetings and in other ways, to see that every individual concerned has the implications of the resolution explained to him clearly.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: I understand what the Minister is saying, but would this provision prohibit further consultations? If someone was dissatisfied after a public meeting, he could discuss the matter further with officials. It is reasonable to encourage officials, especially in the new local government set-up, to explain problems to local people.

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend does not understand my point. The new clause would not prohibit local authorities from

doing other things as well but it would compel them, regardless of circumstances, to have a public meeting, which would not be justified—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: What is wrong with accountability?

Mr. Millan: If the hon. Lady or any of her hon. Friends wishes to make a contribution, I shall be delighted to listen.

Mrs. Ewing: I cannot see what is wrong with accountability and I do not think that anyone who is elected minds having a meeting. Is there a new breed of people who do not like facing the public? I entirely agree with the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) when he asks what is against officials having to hold meetings. Everyone in Scotland would be behind such an idea.

Mr. Millan: I have been explaining why I thought it was wrong to compel public meetings in all circumstances, whether by officials or by elected members. I was going on to say that the amendment would not prevent a local authority from doing other things as well but that there would be a strong implication that such a specific obligation would be what Parliament felt was the way local authorities should proceed. That would be an unfortunate implication.
There is no difference of view here about the necessity for local authorities to explain what is involved in a housing action area. It would be in their interests in any case. Nothing would encourage obstruction and difficulty more than a failure to tell people what was involved. My main objection to the amendment, however, is that it is too specific. It does not meet all the circumstances. This would far better be left to the good sense of local authorities and the guidance which we shall send out.

Mr. Frank McElhone: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) said that the amendment would provide not for public meetings but simply for meetings of people involved in a housing action area. He and the Minister, who are both Glasgow Members, probably know that Glasgow planners have for some time


been holding meetings. In the case of motorways and expressways they have been public meetings, but for treatment areas they have been private, with local groups participating. This would be too difficult to write into the Bill. I share the Minister's view while appreciating the hon. Member's concern. Very few local authorities do not tell people what is going on in housing treatment areas. No doubt they will do that when we have housing action areas. I do not have the same deep concern about the matter that has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Cathcart.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we cannot have intervention piled upon intervention. Mr. Milian.

Mr. Millan: I am not sure whether I had finished my speech. I have very little left to say.
To some extent one must give credit to the local authorities—first for a certain amount of common sense, and second for experience in dealing with housing treatment areas and in the ways in which it is desirable to let individuals concerned know exactly what is happening. I confirm, as my hon. Friend has said, that having public meetings for the people concerned rather than public meetings proper is something that local authorities already do. Other authorities may find that it is better to send an official or an elected councillor to a tenants' association meeting, which is not a public meeting but which could be an appropriate forum for letting people know what was happening.
There will be guidance on this matter from the Scottish Office, and it will take account of the view that has been strongly expressed tonight by all hon. Members that it is important that tenants and others should be fully informed. I think that is the way to proceed rather than to write into the Bill specific provisions which may not meet particular situations and which we may in certain circumstances regret.

Mr. David Steel: I am glad that the Minister has given support to the principal thought behind the amendment. May I press him to give an undertaking that if a re-draft of the amendment was submitted in the other place, the Government would be willing to look again at this matter?
I entirely take the point that a public meeting is not necessarily appropriate and, indeed, would be a waste of the public's time and money in certain situations. For example, I have seen projected housing action areas under the Bill which may consist of as few as eight or nine houses and some of even less. Clearly a public meeting might be entirely inappropriate. The Minister is right in saying that the correct way to go about this matter is probably to go into the houses themselves. That would meet the definition of a meeting as distinct from a public meeting.
The amendment requires no explanation in detail by officials of a local authority. That might be inappropriate in some circumstances. However, it should be the duty of elected members of a local authority to explain matters in major schemes.
I hope that the Minister will remain sympathetic to the idea of a statutory requirement, over and above the advertisements and notices for meetings of the kind he has described, so that an amendment may be incorporated in the other place. The only reason why I do not feel able to support this amendment is that it is generally incompetent. Other than that, I support the principle.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I appreciate the point which has been made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel). I am not a qualified lawyer. The amendment was not drafted as well as it should have been drafted. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is very sensible. He suggests that we should withdraw the amendment and that the Minister should give an assurance, as I hope he will, that between now and the passage of the Bill in another place he will reconsider this matter.
The important thing is that everyone who is to be affected by such a change should have an opportunity to ask questions of someone. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) said that local authorities acted with common sense and were always sensible. He rightly pointed out that in Glasgow we have had many public meetings of people affected by such matters in recent years. However, local authorities do not always show common sense when looking into the merits of various matters. I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman walked


through Knightswood this week or next he would see that local authorities have not always shown a correct appreciation of people's problems in their plans.
I hope that between now and the next stage the Minister will think seriously about a better amendment which will cover the point. We shall withdraw this amendment.

Mr. Barry Henderson: The Minister of State has given an undertaking that guidance will be sent to the local authorities on this matter. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has championed his own local authority. There is an even better authority in my constituency. What we were trying to achieve in the amendment was to ensure that the practice of the best local authorities would become the practice of all. However, in view of what the Minister of State has said and of the difficulty of the wording, I take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 26

PROVISIONS REGARDING ACQUISITION OF LAND BY LOCAL AUTHORITY

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 24, line 10. at end insert 'not'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We may take at the same time the three following Government amendments, No. 12, No. 13 and No. 14.

Mr. Millan: These are drafting amendments which re-word subsection (4) because we were not happy about the original drafting. The intention is exactly the same as in the original drafting, but the wording is improved.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 24, line 11, leave out 'after' and insert 'before'.

No. 13, in line 12, after `and', insert 'shall be'.

No. 14, in line 16, leave out 'mentioned' and insert:
'of six months and nine months mentioned respectively'.—[Mr. Milian.]

Clause 35

LOCAL AUTHORITY MAY CONTROL OCCUPATION OF HOUSES IN HOUSING ACTION AREA

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 29, line 26, leave out from 'may' to 'make' in line 28 and insert:

(a) as soon as practicable after they receive notification under section 19(3)(b) of this Act, or
(b) if after the expiry of the period of 28 days mentioned in section 19(3) of this Act they have received no notification from the Secretary of State'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We may take at the same time Amendment No. 16. in page 29, line 26, leave out from 'may' to 'make' in line 33 and insert:
'after being notified that the Secretary of State does not propose that the draft resolution he rescinded'.
That amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow. Cathcart (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Millan: Amendment No. 16 has an intention similar to that of Amendment No. 15. Amendment No. 15 is an important amendment. Again it takes up a point raised in Committee by hon. Members on both sides, which related to the question of the dating of a control of occupation order which would have the effect of imposing controls on the letting and re-letting of houses in a housing action area which were to be the subject of demolition or of integration.
The reason for a control of occupation order is to prevent abuse—to prevent local authorities from being faced with rehousing problems which they should not have to face, to prevent abuse by tenants, and, particularly in this case, to prevent abuse by unscrupulous landlords. It was represented to the Government that the wording in the Bill, which provided for the making of a control of occupation order as from the date of the final resolution, was not adequate and that we should specify it as being basically from the date of the draft resolution or from the date at which it was clear that the draft resolution was being allowed to stand by the Secretary of State.
The purpose of Amendment No. 15 is to meet the latter point, so that a control of occupation order can date from the time at which it is clear that the draft


resolution by the local authority has been approved or at least that there has been no direction by the Secretary of State to rescind it. That seems to be the appropriate time to make a control of occupation order.
Up to that point, of course, the local authority should not have given any publicity, at least in a general sense, to the draft resolution. In any case, the notice which will go out about the control of occupation order can, under this procedure, go out at the same time as the notice to the tenants and everyone involved whom we have been talking about on an earlier amendment. Administratively and logically it is convenient to do it in this way. We lose nothing by doing so as compared with specifying the date of the draft resolution, which might cause a good deal of confusion and produce no particular benefit.
By the amendment we have met the undertaking that we gave in Committee that we should be meeting the real difficulty that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee felt would exist during the awkward period before the final resolution, which could lead to the abuse of the area and particular houses in it, We have put that right by the amendment. In view of our previous discussions in Committee I believe that the amendment will be welcomed by both sides of the House.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Ancram: Having moved a similar amendment in Committee, I welcome this amendment. It meets an important point. As the Minister has told us, it allows the councils to have some control over occupation and to prevent housing action areas acting as a magnet for unscrupulous landlords.
I feel that this is one of the most important amendments that has been tabled. I have one small question to put to the Minister relating to the decision that he took not to accept a suggestion which was made in Committee that the amendment should not date from the time of the draft resolution but from a later date after the Secretary of State had been operative in deciding whether the draft resolution was right.
The point of choosing the later date is so that the situation does not arise in

which a draft resolution is passed and then rescinded and an occupation order is passed unnecessarily. Paragraph (b) of the amendment would allow precisely that to happen. As I understand it, if after 28 days the Secretary of State decides under this clause that he needs more time in which to make a decision, the council, nevertheless, can go ahead and pass its control of occupation order. It could happen that a week after the council passed its control of occupation order notification could come from the Secretary of State under paragraph (c) which would mean that the council would have to withdraw its order.
Would it not be simpler just to accept the spirit of Amendment No. 16 which is to make control of occupation orders applicable only after the Secretary of State has notified the authority that he does not propose to rescind the draft resolution?

Mr. Millan: I considered that point as the hon. Gentleman has been speaking. It is covered in the amendment because we mention notification from the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State were to require time he would have to give notification. Therefore, I think that the hon. Gentleman's point is probably covered. This is rather a technical matter and I give the assurance that I shall consider it and any other point that is put to me. I want to ensure that we get this matter absolutely right.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We are grateful to the Minister for tabling this amendment following an amendment which was tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Ancram). My hon. Friend has mentioned an important point and if the Minister looks at the wording he will see that there could be doubt about the difference between something that is covered under paragraph (b) or (c). The amendment fully meets the principle that we put forward in Committee, and I am grateful to the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 29, line 30, leave out 'that section as read with'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendment No. 19.

Mr. Millan: Amendment No. 17 is a drafting amendment that follows Amendment No. 15.
I am not sure that we have Amendment No. 19 absolutely right. We shall have to look again at the wording before the Bill goes to another place. That would be a convenient time to consider the point made by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Ancram) on the previous amendment.
In the meantime, in the hope that the amendments are right, I commend them to the House. If they are not right, we can put them right later.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 30, line 10, leave out from ' conviction ' to end of line 12 and insert:
(a) to a fine not exceeding £400, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction in respect of any house to a fine not exceeding £400 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both such fine and such imprisonment; and
(b) in the case of a continuing offence to a further fine of £5 for every day or part of a day which he occupies the house, or permits it to be occupied, after conviction'.
In Committee the feeling was expressed that, although we had increased the penalties for breach of a control of occupation order from £20 to £200, it might be possible for a determined and unscrupulous landlord to decide cold-bloodedly that he could get enough extra rent over a sufficient long period before being caught out to make even a fine of £200 worth paying. I was asked to consider increasing the fine beyond £200, and £400 was suggested in an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and supported by both sides of the Committee.
In answering that debate in Committee I said that I would look at the point and would also consider imprisonment for the worst offences—a point which was not put to me in Committee. I have since considered both the level of the fines and the question of imprisonment, and the result is the amendment that is before the House.
The amendment increases the maximum fine from £200 to £400 and, where there is a second or subsequent conviction—and here by definition one is dealing with

a determined individual who breaks the law in a way which he finds profitable—there is an alternative penalty of imprisonment for up to three months either along with or in substitution for a fine. That is a substantial penalty for breach of a control of occupation order.
I hope that these penalties will never have to be imposed, because I hope that there will not be breaches of the order, certainly not deliberately. There may be occasional inadvertent or negligent breaches and, no doubt, those who are inadvertent or negligent should, if necessary, pay the penalty. But the maximum penalties which we lay down here are designed only for the most determined breaches of the law and as a deterrent. I hope that they will bring home to any individual who may be so disposed that to breach a control of occupation order is a serious offence and that anyone who breaches an order will be subject to serious penalties.

Mr. Baxter: Will the Minister tell me whether the clause will impair the operations of the local authority? In the days of the old closing orders it was sometimes beneficial to a local authority to switch people from one condemned house to another to permit the proper development of an area. I do not object to severe penalties being imposed for a flagrant breach of regulations, but it is sometimes desirable that a local authority should be permitted to move a person from one place to another, and I hope that the amendment will not prevent this.

Mr. Rifkind: I welcome the amendment, and I particularly welcome the introduction of the possibility of imprisonment for this type or offence The Minister will doubtless recall that the possibility of imprisonment was mentioned in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison). Until that time only a fine had been considered.
The amendment is important. However, I am pleased that the Minister has restricted the posible term of imprisonment to three months. A great deal of the concern expressed about this matter in Committee was not of a general nature. It related to an individual landlord in Edinburgh who has repeatedly flouted the law and incurred the only possible maximum penalty of a £20 fine


on each occasion. That man is exceptional. It would be unfortunate if some of the Draconian punishments suggested or implied in Committee, because of that individual's flagrant disregard of the law, were introduced into the Bill and could be imposed, if the sheriff desired, on many people. Imprisonment should be an exceptional form of punishment. For the individual concerned and anybody else who might feel inclined to repeat this type of activity, however, imprisonment should prove a sufficient deterrent. I welcome the amendment.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I should like to assure my hon. Friend the Minister that the amendment will receive a warm welcome in Edinburgh.
The matter was discussed in Committee as a result of an amendment that I introduced because of experience in Edinburgh with a particularly incorrigible landlord and the frustration felt by the local authority when faced with a man who laughed at the law because the fine was too small to deter him from a practice which he still found profitable. I am pleased that the amendment goes beyond my original amendment and includes imprisonment, which will strengthen the penalty clauses.
The amendment also provides increased penalties for the repetition of an offence rather than a continuance of the same offence, in respect of which the only increased penalty is provided in existing law.
It gives me great satisfaction, which I am sure is shared by other hon. Members, that whatever else the Bill will achieve it will put an end to the evil business of John Dorward and save possible future victims falling into his hands. I do not think it will be necessary to enforce the penalties. I am convinced that when John Dorward reads the papers tomorrow and learns about the penalty clauses he will take immediate steps to wind up his business.

Mr. Millan: Nothing that is done here will affect the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter). I am not happy about the idea of local authorities moving people from one condemned house to another. There is provision in Clause 27 for a local authority to maintain a house

subject to demolition for temporary occupation. It is not a generally desirable practice but it is sometimes necessary. It will not be affected by the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 30, line 26, at end insert:
(aa) on the date of the passing of a final resolution under section 20 of this Act identifying a house in accordance with that section as read with section 18(4)(b) of this Act;
(aaa) on the date of the rescinding of a draft resolution under the said section 20 '.—[Mr. Millan.]

Clause 36

APPLICATION TO SHERIFF FOR POSSESSION WHERE HOUSE IS IDENTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 18(4)(a)

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 31, line 31, at end insert:
'but no such order shall be made unless the sheriff is satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation on reasonable terms will be available to the tenant'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendment No. 22 and Amendment No. 21, in page 31, line 31, at end insert:
'(4) Before making such an order the Sheriff will require evidence that alternative accommodation, which is reasonable and suitable to all the circumstances, has been offered to the tenant concerned'.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Millan: Amendment No. 20, taken with Government Amendment No. 22, meets a commitment that I made in Committee. Concern was then expressed that the provisions under this part of the Bill, while generally accepted as filling a gap in existing legislation, might have undesirable repercussions on individual tenants and in particular cases tilt the balance unfavourably against tenants.
There was a feeling in Committee that we should have written into the clauses concerned—Clauses 36, 37 and 38—additional protection for the tenant which would provide that where an order was to be made by the sheriff which would enforce eviction on the tenant for reasons which were regarded as necessary, the sheriff must have evidence that alternative and reasonable accommodation was available. I said in Committee that


the position was largely taken care of but I was anxious that there should be no misunderstanding about it. Therefore, we have now made the position explicit.
Our amendments are preferable to Amendment No. 21, although its intention is absolutely the same. Our amendments are better from the point of view of drafting and they cover the whole position, which Amendment No. 21 would not. Our amendments include the words "on reasonable terms" which provide an added protection for the tenant. These words do not appear in Amendment No. 21, although I accept that the intention in this regard is exactly the same on both sides of the House.

Mr. McElhone: Bearing in mind my experience as a Glasgow City councillor, I am particularly grateful for what the Government are proposing. There is no record of Glasgow Corporation refusing a house to anyone who has had to be moved under housing treatment, redevelopment or clearance schemes, but there is a provision in the corporation's housing rules stipulating in regard to entitlement for alternative accommodation, that a person must have occupied a house for 12 months from the date of the clearance, demolition or treatment order which is to affect it. This meant that a person who took up occupancy of a house in a treatment area where the work had just started had not occupied the house for the period laid down under the rules and therefore could be refused alternative accommodation. At the end of the day such people were, however, offered alternative accommodation, although it might not have been of the standard they expected. Therefore, I am grateful for this provision to enable the sheriff to decide on reasonable alternative accommodation.

Mr. Ancram: I also welcome what the Government now propose, particularly as I put forward an amendment in Committee which gave rise to the original discussion on the point.
The main concern is that there is always a danger in housing demolition and renovation schemes that while we are trying to cure homelessness we may create it because we throw people out of their homes. In the past few years during

the carrying out of renovation and improvement schemes there has always been a shortage of alternative houses into which people could move.
I welcome the amendments, which ensure that, before anyone is ordered out of a house by the order of the sheriff, the sheriff will be able to ensure that there is suitable alternative accommodation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38

APPLICATION TO SHERIFF FOR POSSESSION WHERE HOUSE IS IDENTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 18(4)(b)

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 33, line 3, at end add
but no such order shall be made unless the sheriff is satisfied that suitable alternative accommodation on reasonable terms will be available to the tenant".—[Mr. Millan.)

Clause 48

INTERPRETATION

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 38, line 11, leave out "sections 2(2), 3(2)(c)(i) and 19(6) and insert:
section 3 (2) (c) (i)".
I have a long and elaborate explanation of why this amendment is necessary, but I hope the House will be content to accept my assurance that it is a purely technical matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

CONSEQUENCES OF BREACH OF CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 9

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 41, line 24, after "recover", insert:
(i) under paragraph 1 above, the whole amount of any sums paid by them by way of improvement grant, or (ii)

No. 26, in page 41, line 26, leave out "either" and insert "any such".[Mr. Millan.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 49, line 42 leave out "5 and 6" and insert "2 and 3"
This amendment, too, is a purely drafting amendment, but I hope that it gives me the opportunity to say again that I have welcomed during the Report as well as the Committee stage the constructive way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have approached the Bill. I think that the net result is a rather better Bill.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Throughout the Bill's progress, we have been grateful to the Government for the way in which they have responded to our amendments. It is significant that no fewer than six significant amendments have been accepted which will help tenants in housing action areas and improve their conditions. Because of our printing difficulties, the Bill is certainly now bigger. We also think that it is a better Bill.

Amendment agreed to

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — LAND TENURE REFORM SCOTLAND BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — MEMBERS' INTERESTS (DECLARATION)

Ordered,
That Mr. James Prior be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration) and that Mr. Cranley Onslow be added to the Committee.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day — MENTAL HEALTH ACT PATIENTS (RELEASE)

9.51 p.m.

Dr. Michael Winstanley: I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise the difficult, worrying and distressing subject of the release from hospital of patients detained under Section 60 of the Mental Health Act.
This is an area in which there is some public anxiety. It is one in which mistakes are very rare, although there have perhaps been one or two recently. If a mistake occurs, it can be very damaging to those administering the law and can put back the clock with regard to the reform of the penal law in this respect. It is important that the public should be satisfied that this aspect of the law is administered justly, sensibly and safely.
I am prompted to raise this difficult subject by a distressing case which occurred in my constituency. It is one which has already had much publicity and is the subject of local controversy. Therefore, it seemed to me that nothing but good could be done by obtaining the true facts from the Minister concerned. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with the case and then go from the particular to the general, so that we may have a better understanding of the procedures.
Less than a year ago the only child of two of my constituents, a girl aged two, was killed by a 21-year-old girl who was sitting in. The girl then went direct to the police and reported that she had killed the child. She appeared before the Manchester Crown Court on 12th October, when she was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility.
The court considered medical reports on the girl's state of mind and made a hospital order under Section 60 of the Mental Health Act 1959, coupled with an order restricting discharge—without

limit of time—under Section 65. The principal effect of that latter order is that the patient may not be granted leave or be discharged from hospital without the Home Secretary's consent. The girl was then admitted to Parkside Hospital in Macclesfield.
In raising this distressing matter, I am not seeking to reopen old, very painful and distressing wounds for the bereaved couple whose child was killed in those tragic circumstances, nor do I wish to cause distress to someone who has been suffering from a serious mental illness, schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a very distressing disease affecting almost anybody of any age. It could affect any one of us. We are not talking of a different class of person. We are talking about any of us who might develop this distressing illness called schizophrenia at any time.
In cases of that kind we do not consider punishment. Nobody would consider that there is any place for punishment of persons who have committed offences while they are suffering from a mental disease and who are not aware of the nature of the act they are commiting or are not responsible for their actions. In such cases, two matters arise—first the treatment, care and cure of the mentally afflicted person; second, the safety of the public as a whole.
Mistakes in this field are very rare. Should a mistake occur it can be damaging. It can undermine public confidence in the law and administration of the law. The law must never in this field appear to be out of step with public opinion. If the public lose confidence, great damage is done.
The girl in question went to a hospital in Macclesfield seven months ago. I was approached by constituents who learned five weeks ago that the girl was out and about in their own shopping area, frequenting public places and shops in the area in which they lived—that is, less than seven months after sentence had been pronounced on the girl. Not unnaturally, the bereaved parents were uneasy and worried. They live in Hazelgrove. The girl's parents live in an immediately adjacent area on the outskirts of Stockport. The girl frequents the same shopping area, the village of Hazelgrove.
The parents approached me, as they were very worried. They felt that a mistake had been made. It seemed to them that the girl had been released very soon after sentence. They were concerned that they might meet this girl in the shops in the district and they asked me to raise the matter. The matter was raised in the local Press and has been the subject of some local controversy. I do not say that a mistake has been made. However, the matter having been raised, certain questions spring to mind.
I speak not only as a Member of Parliament but also as a doctor. I am not a specialist in psychiatric conditions. Schizophrenia is a very difficult illness; it is unpredictable. The behaviour of people suffering from schizophrenia cannot easily be predicted. One sees so many cases in which the results are not what one expects or hopes for. In recent months rapid strides have been made in its treatment. But as a doctor I would find it difficult to certify with complete confidence that a person sentenced in those circumstances only seven months ago had become safe to be released to the community in which she formerly lived. On the other hand, I do not say she is not safe.
One wonders about the case. This girl is being released on weekend leave in the care of her parents, perhaps preparatory to later release, as a kind of therapeutic test to see how she progresses in her home circumstances and ordinary background. If her treatment had been successful, she could be regarded as being cured and released in that way.
It is unfortunate that her parents live in the same district so that she meets people who are aware of all the circumstances and who will constantly remind her of that tragic episode. That may be placing additional stress on the patient.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]

Dr. Winstanley: If it is alleged that the girl, with treatment, has completely recovered from her previous condition, one must ask oneself a question. Had I committed an act of this kind in a schizophrenic episode—and that is per

fectly possible; none of us should be smug about it because it could happen to anyone—and if I were cured, would I feel that it was wholly right that I should be out and at large in that same district within only seven months?
It might be helpful if the Minister took the opportunity to outline the procedures and safeguards which his Department adopts in these cases generally, because if the law is to work, and if people are to have confidence in the administration of the law, it is important that they should know that the law is operated safely. It would be helpful if he would spell out the steps his Department takes. It would be helpful, too, if he could outline the steps taken in this particular case. How many consultants have been asked their opinion on the case? Has this step been taken on the advice of only one consultant psychiatrist, or has more than one opinion been given?
Since the girl is returning to her home and to the care of her parents, and since she is 21 and the parents, presumably, have no direct control, because she must be a fairly free person and able to move about, what kind of psychiatric and social service support is being provided during the weekend periods of freedom?
What, if any, conditions are attached to these weekends of leave? Is the girl prevented from taking up employment? Are there any restrictions on the way in which she may move about in the community? I am not suggesting that there necessarily should be but I should like to know what consideration has been given to the matter.
As with all cases of this kind, I hope that this unfortunate person who committed this terrible and tragic act in the course of a serious illness will make a complete and final recovery and that, having made it, she will be ultimately integrated into the community. For the moment, however, what conditions have been attached to the periods of release? Treatment for schizophrenia has improved. What treatment has been given in this case and what guarantee does the Home Secretary have that the treatment will be maintained during these periods of leave? If, as I suspect, the treatment is given in the form of long-acting injections, that is a satisfactory answer. The injections will presumably


be given before the weekend release begins and their effect would continue until after the release was over. That will not apply at a later stage if there is permanent release, but that is not a matter for consideration tonight.
I fully understand, as I am sure the Minister of State does, the anxiety of those parents who were bereaved in such a tragic and horrible way. I do not think that in approaching me they were activated by malice of any kind, but they had a genuine anxiety whether the right thing had been done. I hope that the debate will demonstrate beyond peradventure that what is being done is right and safe for the community as a whole, or, alternatively, that if what has been done is not right and an error has been made, this will be seen as an opportunity to rectify that error.

10.5 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Dr. Winstanley) not only for the moderation with which he raised the difficult issues involved in this case but also for giving me the opportunity of reassuring his constituents and public opinion generally about the care we take in relation to all patients in mental hospitals who are the subject of Section 65 orders under the Mental Health Act.
If an accused person coming before the courts is convicted of a criminal offence and the court feels it right on the medical evidence to make a Section 60 order, which is for compulsory detention in a mental hospital for a period of up to 12 months which may be renewed by the doctors after that period of time, or a Section 65 order, which means that the patient is detained in the mental hospital under restrictions which have to be supervised by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and which can be removed only at his pleasure, the burden falls upon the authorities to assure the public that when they make decisions in relation to patients they do so with an awareness of the possible danger that may befall the public.
Equally, it has to be borne in mind that these are mental patients. The assumption behind the order itself is that they are sick, not that they are criminals. If it transpires that the treatment which

is afforded to them in the hospital is capable of curing them to the extent that they can again live normally, or almost normally, in the community without danger to the public, in those circumstances it is right that there should be a decision to release them. Otherwise one would be penalising them for a criminal offence for which they were not mentally responsible but which was merely a symptom of their illness. Therefore, in all these cases the question is: how far is it right to judge that the patient has recovered his mental health and is therefore able to resume his place in society without danger to society?
Those are basically medical questions. Inevitably we rely upon the experienced judgment of consultant psychiatrists and other doctors in advising us, in so far as it falls to the Home Office to deal with these matters, about their judgment of whether it is safe to release a person. But we still have to make a judgment in Section 65 cases about whether restrictions can be removed, and from time to time in the interests of the public it is thought necessary to disregard the medical judgment and to take extra care. Since the burden falls upon me to advise the Home Secretary in most of these cases that have to come to Ministers, I take the view that the safety of the public is paramount. Unless I am satisfied that all the indications are that the patient is as safe as reasonable human judgment can suggest, I take the view that it is better to wait until that kind of judgment can be made.
Inevitably, however, it is ultimately a human judgment, and sometimes mistakes can be made. If a mistake is made, I hope the public will understand that every care has been taken before the release of a mental patient to ensure that that does not happen. Occasionally, however, as the hon. Gentleman has said, there will be mistakes.
There are at present about 2,000 restricted patients under detention in mental hospitals of whom about 65 per cent.—that is, 1,300—are in three special hospitals, Broadmoor, Rampton and Moss Side. The others are maintained in National Health Service hospitals and represent about 1·3 per cent. of the total population of those hospitals.
The girl to whom the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention was the subject of a


Section 65 order. This deals with the restrictions relating to the Secretary of State's powers. The girl was in a National Health Service hospital rather than in one of the special hospitals. That decision was taken on the advice of the psychiatrist who advised the judge at the trial. Both the judge and the psychiatrist took the view that although what she had done was a serious and distressing crime to the parents of the child, given proper medication this was not someone who was likely to be a danger to the public.
This person is now aged 22 physically. Emotionally she is very much younger, about 15. In the hospital where she has been treated she is called "the child". Her emotional immaturity is reflected in her appearance as well as in her conduct. She looks a frail, inadequate personality. She had had difficulties before the occasion when she was committed for this offence, but nobody had thought that she was suffering from a mental illness.
After the murder took place in the circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman has described—the charge was later reduced to one of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility—it was discovered that the girl was suffering from schizophrenia. She had all the hallmarks of that illness. She was hearing voices, and it was the voices which told her to kill. She had a flattening of her emotional tone and she was suffering from an apparent failure to appreciate the gravity of what she had done. Happily, schizophrenia is one of those mental illnesses which is susceptible to quick treatment by modern drugs. She was admitted to the hospital in Macclesfield and was given medication by the injection of Modecate into the muscle.
As I understand it the virtue of this treatment is that the Modecate is injected into the muscle and gradually distilled so that it can have a restraining effect upon the personality for quite a substantial time, up to a fortnight I gather. Under that kind of medication the girl made rapid and visible improvement, so that by December, although she was admitted early in October, the consultant thought that she had made sufficient progress for him to be able to consider periods of leave. Discussions were entered into with the Home Office because the Home Secretary's consent was required for such leaves. It was not until April that consent

was given. Not only had she made visible improvement, but because of her kind of personality it had distinct therapeutic advantages to allow her to have weekend leaves with her family.
Apparently she is the kind of girl who reacts easily to the influences around her. For instance, in recent months she has been in contact with a girl who stutters and so she has begun to stutter herself. When at home she was very influenced by the personality of her father and assumed characteristics typical of her father. Therefore, it was felt unwise to keep her for long periods in a mental hospital with mentally disturbed patients who might themselves have a bad effect on her progressive advance towards mental health. It was thought that if she could have weekend leave she could react in a normal environment.
I understand that the girl's mother is a responsible woman who takes considerable care to follow the instructions of doctors. It was thought right to allow her to go home on weekend leave.

Dr. Winstanley: The Minister said that this action was taken because the consultant recommended it. Was the action taken on the advice of one consultant, or was any further opinion sought before a decision was taken?

Mr. Lyon: I was about to come to that. In all cases, both in special hospitals and also in National Health Service hospitals, the patient, as in every other medical case, is under the control of the consultant who is regarded as the responsible medical officer. But a consultant psychiatrist in a mental hospital as large as this hospital, containing 1,400 beds, has fellow consultants in the hospital and also junior consultants in his team. Inevitably these cases are discussed among a number of doctors. The indications of health are assessed by a number of people. The consultant acts and then the Home Office, on the advice he tenders on behalf of the team, will act. In this case we acted to allow home leaves in May.
I fully understand the stress on the parents of the girl who was killed and I can understand how they felt so soon after the event to see the girl in question walking in the street. Unfortunately, they came to know about the home leaves and as a result this matter was drawn to the


attention of a Sunday newspaper, which played it up as a news story. The result has been to foment concern and agitation in the area represented by the hon. Gentleman. Not unnaturally, that has got back to the girl and there is no doubt that it has affected the otherwise steady progress she was making. It has thrown back her cure to some extent. She has had a relapse into the kind of hallucinations which she suffered at the time of the original trouble. With the aid of Modecate she is overcoming that and making progress again.
In due course it will be necessary to resume the planned programme of leaves to help her to recover her health completely. There is no question of releasing her yet. There never was a question of releasing her in the immediate future unconditionally. It will be some time before that decision will have to be considered. The visits home are simply a method of helping her to recover her health and one views them in that light. But if she continues to make progress the time will come when it will be right and proper to discharge her, and we intend that she should go back into the community.
In the light of my explanation, I hope that not only the hon. Gentleman but the parents of the child will feel that we have acted responsibly and that there was no mistake in this case. I hope too that it will be accepted that, although I understand their feelings, it would not be right to accede to those feelings in order to keep a person inside a mental hospital who properly ought to be allowed out at least on weekend leave and permanently in due course.

Dr. Winstanley: Before the hon. Gentleman finally concludes his remarks, may I put two matters to him? I should like to know whether, in the course of these visits, the services of the mental welfare authorities were alerted so as to assist the parents and the girl herself, and whether the same will be done on the occasion of future visits? Secondly, were conditions attached to the weekend leaves, and would similar conditions be applied if future weekend leaves were arranged?

Mr. Lyon: The conditions for leaves are set out by the consultant psychiatrist on the basis of his view about what seems appropriate for each patient. For the limited period that this girl was allowed leave—the nature of the medication that she was taking would last easily over a weekend—it was not considered necessary to have any social service back-up. If there was ever any question of discharge, we would make careful arrangements for social service back-up and perhaps probation office back-up to support the patient. In this case, as is normal, we warned the local police of what was happening. In any case, parents are always told to get in touch with the consultant at the hospital if there is any difficulty.
All these conditions were applied in this girl's case. The fact is that she did not prove a danger on the very few visits that she had at home. It is only the distress in the area which caused this setback and which prevented her from continuing the programme of leaves.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.